So, I just saw the Hobbit 2...

...what was that?



I mean, I liked it. But what was that?

It was the promise of Evangeline Lily being roped into a threesome with another Elf and a Dwarf.

Snake-Aes wrote:...what was that?



I mean, I liked it. But what was that?

Yeah...


I'm still not quite sure what to make of them, myself.

I did enjoy the movies (or at least I'm telling myself that I did) but it's all just so different from either the LOTR films, or the Hobbit book..


I'm starting to think, now, that Peter Jackson just has a ridiculous and over-the-top filmmaking style, but because of the sheer size of LotR, he wasn't able to really fit a lot of that in. But with the hobbit, he's stretching a single book into three films and can play with it a lot more.

Arnock wrote:I'm starting to think, now, that Peter Jackson just has a ridiculous and over-the-top filmmaking style, but because of the sheer size of LotR, he wasn't able to really fit a lot of that in. But with the hobbit, he's stretching a single book into three films and can play with it a lot more.

Braindead kinda gave it away. Good thing he hasn't lost it.

I think the movie was awesome for Smaug alone. Also for the dwarves fighting. (The dwarves fighting Smaug was maybe a leeeeetle bit too much.)

Dwarves vs Smaug made me cringe as a gamer. I was about to go up and say "Oh hell no, you don't attack a red dragon with fire damage!" :p

I think I discovered why I was so bothered. The Hobbit movies only make sense if they're detached from the rest of the setting, movies and books. As a standalone piece it's overall good.

Snake-Aes wrote:Dwarves vs Smaug made me cringe as a gamer. I was about to go up and say "Oh hell no, you don't attack a red dragon with fire damage!" :p

I'm giving Thorin the benefit of the doubt and assume that his plan was that the massive weight of rapidly cooling gold was what was going to capture Smaug.

I mean, he even used Smaug to light the forges!

Gold doesn't cool rapidly enough for that to make sense. It was just a stupid, nonsensical addition because the suits wanted "MOAR 3D CGI BATTLEZ, BECAUSE $$$$!!1!1"

It's still damn heavy.

Disliked the battle, but loved the scene with Bilbo and Smaug. I was most worried that they'd mess up the portrayal of Smaug, but I feel like they did a great job with that at least.

Era wrote:Disliked the battle, but loved the scene with Bilbo and Smaug. I was most worried that they'd mess up the portrayal of Smaug, but I feel like they did a great job with that at least.

"Sleeping nonstop for 60 years" probably does justify a bout of ADHD :p

I'm starting to think, now, that Peter Jackson just has a ridiculous and over-the-top filmmaking style, but because of the sheer size of LotR, he wasn't able to really fit a lot of that in. But with the hobbit, he's stretching a single book into three films and can play with it a lot more.

It's a different Peter Jackson to the one that made the LotR series.

Consider that the entire intro - Dwarves running from Orcs, the Bear guy, horses, abandoning horses makes no damn sense and adds absolutely nothing. The movie could be like 30 minutes shorter and be exactly the same.

havn't seen the 2nd part as cinemas flooded with people , tbh. i hate people , they are loud, whispering, standing up , eating popcorn when mine is empty , you know , peoples stuff but i'm looking forward to see it in the shiny new 48frames imax 3d format (was it correct?)

I have no problem with movie covering a book, when i can recall thilling moments from the book in the movies, if jackson thinks some sidestories makes the movie better, why not, i like those epic movies, even if they are a bit nonrealistic, but speaking of realism in a storry where dwarfes trying to beat up a big bad angry dragon isn't.. well... that good.

At least i like a bloated move with pretty pictures , where the storrytelling is good much more then cut down, castrated movies like eragon for example, where the book have a huge potential but the movie was plain crap.. humans looked like humans, elves looked like humans, dwarfs looked like humans (ok, they were not mentioned as dwarfs in the movie) , urgals where looking like dirty humans (oh, they probably lost the horns somewhere on the set).


Sure the movie could maybe 30 mins shorter but to be honest i like dwarfs running away from orcs (even on battlegrounds in wow) , and horses (mlp <3), and for sure bears are great




so now that i know there are bears and horses and dwars running from orcs i may can handle "people(tm)" and will go to the cinema next week XD

I liked the movie...but you'll find that not only are there side stories, but some significant events were minimized (Beorn) and others heavily changed. The movie was entertaining, but it didn't improve on the book with these additions.

The love triangle was forced and awkward, legolas dancing on the heads of dwarves was pretty cheesy, and the dragon chasing the dwarves was almost comical. Some other additions were handled quite a bit better, but it's hard to argue that those particular major elements made the movie better than not having them.

Darielle wrote:

I'm starting to think, now, that Peter Jackson just has a ridiculous and over-the-top filmmaking style, but because of the sheer size of LotR, he wasn't able to really fit a lot of that in. But with the hobbit, he's stretching a single book into three films and can play with it a lot more.

It's a different Peter Jackson to the one that made the LotR series.

Consider that the entire intro - Dwarves running from Orcs, the Bear guy, horses, abandoning horses makes no damn sense and adds absolutely nothing. The movie could be like 30 minutes shorter and be exactly the same.

Wait... what?

I believe that was wishful thinking.

My understanding is that the LotR movies were pretty faithful to the books, while the Hobbit 2 was a parody.

However, as always, I must emphasize I've never read any of Tolkien's works, so I can't confirm or deny.

A parody? I doubt that was the intent. While the movie strays quite a ways from the book, it's not a parody.

It strays mostly by trying to be an epic like LOTR instead of a child's bedtime tale that the book is. They did it right on the first movie.