Movies

kvetcha said:
I adore The Hobbit (the novel) - the first movie feels closest in spirit, but the whole thing is just too stuffed with extra lore, and the script feels sloppy and sweaty in a way the original trilogy never did, since Jackson was basically flying by the seat of his pants trying to get them made. I really don’t blame him, but still.
Click to expand...
That’s kinda what I would expect. But I love the original Hobbit story.
 
The Denmarkian Wonder said:
I really, really dislike the Hobbit trilogy lol
Click to expand...
I was kinda in on the first one as a 6/10 but fell off with the second. After marathoning all three extendeds earlier this year I think it’s really only the third movie that feels like a true stinker. All of them are inferior to LotR and are sort of critically broken by the decision to split into a trilogy. Waste of a good cast.

I’ve heard the Tolkien Edit is quite good, might give that a shot at some point.
 
I've only seen the first Hobbit movie and was massively turned off by the injection of lore which serviced the LOTR story and not the immediate Bilbo Baggins story. As a kid I was exposed to The Hobbit early via the book and cartoon, and think I only learned about LOTR in fourth or fifth grade. It was mind-blowing to me: The Hobbit is a (mostly) self-contained treasure hunt, and I found it absolutely wild that an ancillary plot detail was spun out into this massive, consequential epic. Everything the Hobbit movie does works directly against the sense of expansion and higher stakes and flies in the face of The Hobbit being a fable for kids.

As for the Extended Editions, I still have them all but now maintain the theatrical cuts are superior: the added material does little for me beyond appeasing the need for a complete adaptation of the story.
 
Bull Shannon said:
I've only seen the first Hobbit movie and was massively turned off by the injection of lore which serviced the LOTR story and not the immediate Bilbo Baggins story. As a kid I was exposed to The Hobbit early via the book and cartoon, and think I only learned about LOTR in fourth or fifth grade. It was mind-blowing to me: The Hobbit is a (mostly) self-contained treasure hunt, and I found it absolutely wild that an ancillary plot detail was spun out into this massive, consequential epic. Everything the Hobbit movie does works directly against the sense of expansion and higher stakes and flies in the face of The Hobbit being a fable for kids.

As for the Extended Editions, I still have them all but now maintain the theatrical cuts are superior: the added material does little for me beyond appeasing the need for a complete adaptation of the story.
Click to expand...
I was read The Hobbit and saw the cartoon as a kid but I held neither in as high regard as you an others have expressed so maybe that’s why it doesn’t bother me. Peter Jackson’s LOTR universe is a place I enjoy being, so while the extended versions might not add much to the movies overall they allow me to spend more time in middle earth with characters I am fond of. This is, to a lesser extent; probably why I also dig the 3 hobbit films. It could have been one movie that stayed true to the source material and might have made for a better single movie overall than any of the 3 films we got but I would have had less time in Middle Earth had we only gotten the one film and in these cases I prefer quantity of quality (especially when I feel like there is isn’t a huge dip in quality overall).
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Feelings about the Amazon series?
Click to expand...
I enjoyed it, not as much as the Peter Jackson movies, a bit of an over-reliance on CGI but that just feels like a the way the industry is going. The first season was a bit scattershot and fragmented but I enjoy the pieces and as long the creators are building to something I will probably stick around and see where it ends up.
 
Bull Shannon said:
I've only seen the first Hobbit movie and was massively turned off by the injection of lore which serviced the LOTR story and not the immediate Bilbo Baggins story. As a kid I was exposed to The Hobbit early via the book and cartoon, and think I only learned about LOTR in fourth or fifth grade. It was mind-blowing to me: The Hobbit is a (mostly) self-contained treasure hunt, and I found it absolutely wild that an ancillary plot detail was spun out into this massive, consequential epic. Everything the Hobbit movie does works directly against the sense of expansion and higher stakes and flies in the face of The Hobbit being a fable for kids.

As for the Extended Editions, I still have them all but now maintain the theatrical cuts are superior: the added material does little for me beyond appeasing the need for a complete adaptation of the story.
Click to expand...
re: the extended editions; I prefer Fellowship Extended and I consider The Two Towers Extended the only version to watch, but can kinda take or leave Return of the King Extended. The Two Towers is just so breathless and disjointed in its theatrical cut.
 
kvetcha said:
re: the extended editions; I prefer Fellowship Extended and I consider The Two Towers Extended the only version to watch, but can kinda take or leave Return of the King Extended. The Two Towers is just so breathless and disjointed in its theatrical cut.
Click to expand...
This makes a ton of sense; as I’ve watched the regular editions the last couple of years Two Towers has seemed the weakest entry.
 
Bull Shannon said:
This makes a ton of sense; as I’ve watched the regular editions the last couple of years Two Towers has seemed the weakest entry.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I like Fellowship a lot in either cut (love the ‘On Hobbits’ opening) but I think TTT is the only one that objectively suffers in its shorter form. The Extended feels like it breathes a little more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top