forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I find the repeated complaint that the movies are boring, interesting. Considering the novel itself isn't actually what I would call riveting.

Angelalex242 wrote: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.

Hmmm, possibly. Although an internet site, I suspect RT is largely frequented by Americans - I certainly know that I don't use it and nor do my other film buff friends. I suspect though that it is generally a well-liked film across the globe with only slight variations from country to country... Most people going to the cinema don't really have high expectations of popcorn movies so as long as they are somewhat entertained on a Saturday night, have a nice big box of fattening popcorn, and a tank full of cola, then they're generally satisfied and have had a good night out and by default enjoy the film they've watched so give it a positive review because they get a bright shiny popcorn film that they aren't scrutinising in any detail that keeps them superficially entertained. In general Hollywood executives aren't idiots when it comes to making money - they have this formula and repeat it with different window dressing, year in, year out. They hit the mark most of the time in varying degrees of success, sometimes they miss it.

Like I said earlier, it's not a bad film, it's a slightly below average one. Boring in places, not particularly well acted, some dull action moments, etc... I could think of better action films to watch and I could think of worse ones too. No bad thing but not for me.

Despite my comments above concerning what I think is the target audience for the movie I'm going for a second viewing tonight as I like a movie I can watch while drinking a soda and eating popcorn and switching off my brain.

Angelalex242 wrote: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.

I suspect the 89 for this movie share the skewed 'demographic' of my acquantances.

Those who have read the book and have more than a casual interest in Tolkien have a neutral/disfavourable opinion of the second movie. Those who have never read the book (and may or may not have seen the cartoon) found it enjoyable, even more so than the first movie. There are always exceptions, of course.

In any case, the have-nots could care less about a fake Tauriel and the new Black Arrow WoMD. Ignorance is bliss.

Just wish they's stuck closer to the book. I don't mind them adding Tauriel and Legolas - but it was over done, gave them way to much screentime.

Not enough Beorn - who looked....erm weird.

Gandalf going to the tomb of the Witchking...what was the reason for that? Let's forget for a moment the Witchking never had a tomb.

Mirkwood felt like a walk down the local woods, it never felt like they were wandering lost for days (hopefully that will be sorted in the special addition).

Lake Town - was erm... well I don't know how I feel about it entirely to be honest. But boy does Bard run around a lot, you think he'd fall in lol.

I sort of liked the Gandalf confronting the Necromancer - not sure about him getting captured though.

Thought it was a good addition that the ring had an effect on Bilbo - links it to the Lotr better, I'm sure the Prof would have done something similiar if he'd continued his rewrite of the hobbit.

I liked the spiders, but not the fact that the dwarves still seemed to have weapons after being captured by them - that made very little sense nor the fact that they could fight back even though they should have been confused and groggy by the spider poison. (that seemed to get handwaved)

Wished they'd slowed things down a little in general - Beorn's house - rushed, Mirkwood rushed, Halls of the Elven King rushed. To make room for what exactly?

You remember the Fellowship of the Ring where they mostly stuck to the story? that seems so long ago now.
Anyway enough from me.

Very much agree with Poosticks' reading on this. I did enjoy it but less than the other films.

Something I don't think anyone has brought up yet:

Why does Legolas still have Orcrist? Doesn't Thorin, you know, need it?

Beleg wrote:Why does Legolas still have Orcrist? Doesn't Thorin, you know, need it?

Because Legolas doesn't meet up with Thorin after the dwarves' escape, and because in the book Thorin never has Orcrist in his living hands again once it is taken from him by the elves.

Because Legolas doesn't meet up with Thorin after the dwarves' escape, and because in the book Thorin never has Orcrist in his living hands again once it is taken from him by the elves.

He doesn't? Hmm.. I thought he had it the entire time.. oops. So what happens to it?

The Elvenking later lay Orcrist on him in during his burial, & it warns them of future attacks.