forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Spoilers.

I disliked the portrayal of Beorn. I really, really disliked that there was no enchanted stream and the Mirkwood part was way too short. Not to mention it was Elves who rescued the Dwarves not Bilbo. But the overall "no food, no hope, no light, no air" etc part from our very own HotW was portrayed nicely.

I really don't understand how can a group of orcs can get that close into Elven territory either, nor into the Lake-Town. If orcs could enter like that easily, Bolg with warg and Legolas with his horse, why can't the dwarves enter too? Why pay all that money in the first place to smuggle themselves

I hate, hate, hate the love triangle. Also Legolas should have had only a cameo and a part in the battle in the 3rd film that's it. He had nearly more screentime than Bilbo! And why even include a scene about Thranduil's face? What is that? An illusion spell? Why???

But the worst part for me was the Smaug and dwarves chasing part. I got so bored...

Do not let me even start on Gandalf vs Sauron magic duel thingy.

All in all when I look back to this trilogy I will only be glad of the new soundtrack and new GW miniatures. Also I think it helped Cubicle to produce the TOR game or motivated them and to put it in the Rhovanion region. So whatever. This trilogy cannot even come close to LOTR movies.

Ok, here is my take in the movie.

I really really disliked it. I wanted too much to like the movie but almost every change that that Peter Jackson made was another disappointment for me. The funny thing is that i found the the first Hobbit movie quite entertaining and the changes acceptable. Imho, the first movie was way more in the spirit of Tolkien (if you take out the over extended boring fighting scenes). The Desolation moved way too far from my limits. Also i think it was a bad uninspiring movie with many many cliches. How many times we have seen one (or something) to be on the verge of falling and in the last moment someone saves him. Anyway...

I find it intriguing how many of us dislike the action scenes - comments of too long & boring repeatedly pop up in this tread. It's ironic, because the battles are probably what PJ & his staff think will sell the films.

For myself, the first one bored me so much that I could barely stay awake, & kept checking my watch

Well, I gave it a second chance (told myself I'm too much of a purist ) & saw it again on television. It still bored me & I required multiple viewings to get through it. IMHO, it's poorly acted, written, & choreographed (let alone the endless inaccuracies).

Because of my experience with the first one & what many of you share on here, I'll wait & save my money & see the second one on TV.

I'm minded of his son Christopher's observation that the LOTR are action films for 14-15 year olds. Pretty much sums it up for these as well.

Unfortunately Action films for 14-24 year old viewers are what the film business relies on for much of it's income. The majority of expensive films are geared towards that demographic as that's where the money is together with Disneyfied films for children.

Art house films generally don't have large budgets for CGI or fantastic locations but set out to tell a story that appeals to adults and is usually distributed to movie houses aimed at this audience and on DVD. If a film can swing funding from one of the government film bureaucracies that's a big plus but often involves trendy themes or local aspects that show off said country.

If you could get the rights to do an art house version of any of JRRT's works then you'd be signing up for a gritty representation of the impact of late nineteenth and early twentieth century industrialisation on the culture of English rural life in the West Midlands. You'd not be getting a film about the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings as seen in your imagination driven by the words of a man who spent his working life examining and teaching language.

Think of PJ's films as a fun-filled childish romp in the lands of Middle-earth as viewed for teenagers and you'll not be disappointed. Consider them as anything else and you'll be very disappointed.

I think you guys are setting too high a bar for PJ. After he's done with the Hobbit, the only part of Middle Earth left to explore will be the Silmarillion, and PJ will probably be making those movies till the day he drops dead, considering how amazingly huge Silmarillion is. There's at least 6, if not 9 movies in the first age (from the two trees, making of silmarils, morgoth's evils, beren and luthien, children of hurin, gondolin, war of wrath...), probably another 3 or 6 in the second age...creation of Numenor, forging of the Ring, downfall of Numenor, Last Alliance

Angelalex242 wrote:I think you guys are setting too high a bar for PJ. After he's done with the Hobbit, the only part of Middle Earth left to explore will be the Silmarillion, and PJ will probably be making those movies till the day he drops dead, considering how amazingly huge Silmarillion is. There's at least 6, if not 9 movies in the first age (from the two trees, making of silmarils, morgoth's evils, beren and luthien, children of hurin, gondolin, war of wrath...), probably another 3 or 6 in the second age...creation of Numenor, forging of the Ring, downfall of Numenor, Last Alliance

I can't see that happening. What has been done so far is under the licensing of Middle-earth Enterprises. The Silmarillion, Lost Tales and other Middle-earth history books are owned in whole by the Tolkien Estate. Judging by his comments on the films so far, I can't see Christopher Tolkien allowing any film to be made that doesn't play like a historical documentary. Even after his death, I don't see the Tolkien Estate relenting in that.

Think of PJ's films as a fun-filled childish romp in the lands of Middle-earth as viewed for teenagers and you'll not be disappointed. Consider them as anything else and you'll be very disappointed.

I disagree with this. I am a teenager (well, technically 19, but there's a 'teen' in there, right?) and I think Peter Jackson just went a bit overboard on some of his ideas. I am perfectly happy to judge the films as films, and I have done. I think they are great films. However, PJ claims they are adaptation yet I feel they really are not

Hermes Serpent wrote:Think of PJ's films as a fun-filled childish romp in the lands of Middle-earth as viewed for teenagers and you'll not be disappointed.

Not really. Even as action movies for kids they fall short in many ways - eg, largely boring action scenes for one thing.

Beleg wrote:However, PJ claims they are adaptation yet I feel they really are not

Of course they're adaptations, whether or not you appreciate their choices.

I'm beginning to think there's some sort of cultural divide going on here....

When I came out of the theatres opening night, I didn't hear anybody ranting about how much they sucked, and rotten tomatoes does still have an 89 percent audience approval.

This website seems to be comprised almost entirely of the other 11.