|
|
Post by kateln on Jan 11, 2013 15:11:21 GMT -4
My friends do a hilarious send up of the one scene that annoyed me, ie, let's tell you Thorin's exposition backstory while he stares off dramatically.
I mean, I love me some Richard Armitage but really?
|
|
ladyjane
Blueblood
Posts: 1,282
Apr 23, 2011 7:25:46 GMT -4
|
Post by ladyjane on Jan 12, 2013 23:05:39 GMT -4
I finally saw it a few days ago and was disappointed. I can't really quantify why, apart from to say that it didn't, for me, have the 'magic' of the LOTR movies. I also came away with the impression that way too many of the film-making decisions were formulaic and the movie felt padded out for no good reason other than to ensure they had enough material for three movies and thus make more money.
This household loves the LOTR trilogy and watch all of the extended movies and making-of featurettes at least a few times a year. We all looked forward to this movie so much. Maybe it will improve for me on second or third viewing, but I was distinctly underwhelmed.
That said, I did like Martin as Bilbo and Richard as Thorin. Andy Serkis absolutely nailed it, as usual.
|
|
HarpofLorien
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 445
Mar 7, 2005 10:44:27 GMT -4
|
Post by HarpofLorien on Jan 28, 2013 5:54:43 GMT -4
Saw it for the second time, and it was much better at 24FPS than in 3D/Imax/48FPS, which is how I saw it the first time. It loses a lot of the magic at the higher resolution, IMO.
That said, the female members of the Denver Tolkien Society have nicknamed Thorin/Richard Armitage Prince McBroodyPants. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Augustus on Jan 28, 2013 19:04:41 GMT -4
Yup, I have the same feeling towards the 24 FPS, I felt it was much better for the viewing enjoyment than the overload of details in the HFR. Ha! Richard does broody very very well.  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 1:50:46 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 21:09:20 GMT -4
I work with hundreds of fanboy nerds, all of whom revere the LOTR films as one would the Ark of the Covenant. These guys have no love for "The Hobbit". Most of them have seen it but they couldn't care less. There's no buzz and they don't express any interest in seeing the rest of the trilogy. I think Peter Jackson made a terrible mistake in trying for another trilogy. This one's made almost a billion worldwide, so it's not a flop, but I can see the other two movies producing catastrophically diminishing returns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atreides on Jan 28, 2013 21:59:30 GMT -4
I work with hundreds of fanboy nerds, all of whom revere the LOTR films as one would the Ark of the Covenant. These guys have no love for "The Hobbit". Most of them have seen it but they couldn't care less. There's no buzz and they don't express any interest in seeing the rest of the trilogy. I think Peter Jackson made a terrible mistake in trying for another trilogy. This one's made almost a billion worldwide, so it's not a flop, but I can see the other two movies producing catastrophically diminishing returns. I kinda agree. I liked The Hobbit but I didn't love it as much as the original trilogy. The magic was gone. All the set pieces had a "been there, done that" quality to them. Some of the big scenes were damn near the same (the big storm in the mountains, the warg chase in the field, the underground chase with the orcs while everything crumbles around them). I'll watch the remaining two but that's just me being a completist. |
|
|
|
Post by Mugsy on Jan 29, 2013 13:19:34 GMT -4
I really liked it. A lot of so-called fanboys are snooty little elitists who can't stand that their precious (heh) little nerd trilogy was glommed onto by regular people. Oh nos, a suburban housewife or a 6-year-old kid or a grandpa likes it! It's not cool anymore. Therefore, they can't embrace the next chapter.
I never thought The Hobbit trilogy would do as well as LOTR (hard to strike gold twice), but time will tell. Many things are slagged at the time, but become beloved classics later. (How much hate was there for Titanic at the old Fametracker site when it came out, but now I there's all sorts of nostalgic love for it). I expect these same fanboys to grow up and have the LOTR and Hobbit trilogies sitting side-by-side (in whatever form media takes) in 25 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martini Girl on Jan 30, 2013 10:43:19 GMT -4
I liked it, but didn't love it. Why? No Viggo and Sean. Yes, I'm shallow......I just couldn't get into the dwarves..... (I'll show myself out)...
|
|
|
|
Post by smitten on Jan 30, 2013 12:33:04 GMT -4
I didn't like the Hobbit because I don't think it was as well done as the LOTR movies. Most blatant for me is that it wasn't as true to the spirit of the book. And Jackson needed an editor. I can't help but wonder how much of a difference two movies vs three would have made.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 1:50:46 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2013 3:24:40 GMT -4
I really liked it. A lot of so-called fanboys are snooty little elitists who can't stand that their precious (heh) little nerd trilogy was glommed onto by regular people. Oh nos, a suburban housewife or a 6-year-old kid or a grandpa likes it! It's not cool anymore. Therefore, they can't embrace the next chapter. I never thought The Hobbit trilogy would do as well as LOTR (hard to strike gold twice), but time will tell. Many things are slagged at the time, but become beloved classics later. (How much hate was there for Titanic at the old Fametracker site when it came out, but now I there's all sorts of nostalgic love for it). I expect these same fanboys to grow up and have the LOTR and Hobbit trilogies sitting side-by-side (in whatever form media takes) in 25 years. The feedback I've gotten from the fanboys has been nothing of the sort. Most of them got into LOTR via their parents and even grandparents, so its not like suburban moms being into D&D-type nerdery is anything new to them. They're just annoyed that the movie is 1) nothing new, really and 2) a blatant grab for more cash by stretching the story to the limit as a trilogy. They could see that the book called for a one-and-done treatment. |
|
