Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Got pretty lackluster reviews from the critics. Not sure if I'll go see it.

You're right, The Hobbit isn't Lord of the Rings. Making 3 movies for a 1,359 page trilogy is acceptable; doing so for Tolkien's earlier work of 287 pages is not. It's essentially turned into a Star Wars franchise now...so in regard to that we can at least say this movie is hopefully better than The Phantom Menace, but it's not like that movie exactly set the bar very high. It would take real effort for that.

Also wasn't thrilled when Jackson took directing reins over from Guillermo del Toro...I'm convinced he could have done an infinitely better job. Pretty ironic though...very Gollum-esque to say the least.

You're right, The Hobbit isn't Lord of the Rings. Making 3 movies for a 1,359 page trilogy is acceptable; doing so for Tolkien's earlier work of 287 pages is not. It's essentially turned into a Star Wars franchise now...so in regard to that we can at least say this movie is hopefully better than The Phantom Menace, but it's not like that movie exactly set the bar very high. It would take real effort for that.

Also wasn't thrilled when Jackson took directing reins over from Guillermo del Toro...I'm convinced he could have done an infinitely better job. Pretty ironic though...very Gollum-esque to say the least.

They cut out some of the best parts in LotR, such as Tom Bombadil and the Scourging of the Shire. They edited the book to the movie. Now they're trying to expand on ideas that were already there. Plus, The Hobbit was very much a story based book, while LotR went into unending detail about everything. There was a lot of fat that was easy to trim from LotR, and some muscle that they cut out too. With The Hobbit, they've been given a gold mine to work with and they want to use it all. I was skeptical, but after this first movie, I have full faith in the series.

You can definitely see remnants of del Toro in the movie, particularly in Azog, who is absolutely awesome. I much prefer Jackson as a general rule though.

A lot of people want it to be a Phantom Menace. I think Star Wars fans are just bitter. A lot of people want the eagles to be the plot hole again, but it just isn't that simple (for reasons stated in the book, but not really described in the movie).

What some may not know is that they are using stuff from Unfishished Tales to flesh the story out more. I read the book and you have gandalf going in and out of it. That is one thing they expand on such as his visit to the White Council that includes Galadriel and Saruman.

My movie going thing is if the critics hate and people like go. If critics like and people hate don't go. If both like it than it is a must go.

They haven't really added any scenes except for the Azog stuff, but even that follows the book for the most part (i.e. the warg meeting and Thrain's death). The Battle of Five Armies and taking down The Necromancer will take a considerably long time and will be the majority of the third movie.

What some may not know is that they are using stuff from Unfishished Tales to flesh the story out more. I read the book and you have gandalf going in and out of it. That is one thing they expand on such as his visit to the White Council that includes Galadriel and Saruman.

My movie going thing is if the critics hate and people like go. If critics like and people hate don't go. If both like it than it is a must go.

Really? Unfinished Tales? Wow, that's cool! I thought that was one of the exclusive rights from the Tolkien estate though.

You're right, The Hobbit isn't Lord of the Rings. Making 3 movies for a 1,359 page trilogy is acceptable; doing so for Tolkien's earlier work of 287 pages is not.

A couple of things to keep in mind is that Jackson's version of the Hobbit draws a lot from the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales as well. Also keep in mind that Tolkien's focus when creating Lord of the Rings was largely on lore. He spent over a decade crafting the universe before he even wrote the Hobbit, and a lot of time afterwards fleshing everything out. Lord of the Rings was the culimation of all that. He also spent a great deal of time describing Middle Earth and all of the locations that are visited, not to mention the use of poetic language throughout. The Hobbit was much more plot-driven. If Lord of the Rings had been written the same way the Hobbit was, none of the individual books would be larger than the Hobbit itself was, and most of There and Back Again will be on the Battle of Five Armies and (I suspect) the driving out of the Necromancer from Dol Goldur, the former of which is largely skipped in the novel due to Bilbo being knocked out, and the latter of which isn't in the book at all.

It's essentially turned into a Star Wars franchise now...so in regard to that we can at least say this movie is hopefully better than The Phantom Menace, but it's not like that movie exactly set the bar very high. It would take real effort for that.

I actually get some of the comparisons to Phantom Menance, though I'm quite convinced that most of the people drawing those comparisons have never actually read the Hobbit. I think a lot of people went into it expecting Lord of the Rings IV, and the fact of the matter is, the Hobbit was written as a kid's book. Most of the comic relief that a lot of people seem to have a problem with (which is where most of the Phantom Menace comparisons are coming from) actually takes place in the book. The general impression I get is that those who are more familiar with the lore, or who at least know the tone of the Hobbit, loved it, and those who only saw Lord of the Rings and were expecting more were disappointed. It's like people reading Dracula and then being disappointed because it's not like Twilight.

Also wasn't thrilled when Jackson took directing reins over from Guillermo del Toro...I'm convinced he could have done an infinitely better job.

One of the biggest criticisms coming from fans of the trilogy was that a large chunk of the movie was done in CGI. While Jackson doesn't have any particular dislike of CGI, Del Toro has, historically, relied much more heavily on it in the past than Jackson has. I'm relatively convinced that the sheer amount of CGI in the film is Del Toro's mark more than it is Jackson's.

Pretty ironic though...very Gollum-esque to say the least.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by calling it "Gollum-esque". Do you mean it was obessive of Jackson? He was was the one who set creating the Hobbit in motion in the first place. Deciding he wanted to have more creative control, especially when the cinematic version of Lord of the Rings is as good as it is, isn't exactly obsessive.

For someone who, as of this post, hadn't seen the movie, you sure seem to be able to judge the content of it. Also, just throwing this out there:

LotR is a bore to me. The trilogy is summed up by walking. Walk some more. Drop some jewelry in a volcano. Fin.

Also, just throwing this out there:

Quote from: Master KChief on May 06, 2012, 08:00:06 PM

LotR is a bore to me. The trilogy is summed up by walking. Walk some more. Drop some jewelry in a volcano. Fin.

Whoever made that quote is brilliant. You should frame that and hang it up in front of your mirror, so, you know, you read it every morning when you wake up.

I hear the 3D version makes people feel sick because of the camera angles, it's like being on a roller coaster ride for 2 hours or something like that lol. They might as well give you a barf bag, "Thank you and enjoy the show" hahaha! Anyways, I don't know how true that is, but from the angles the news showed, I can see how that would happen. Im not a huge fan of 3D anyways. Thanks for the review though!

Somebody saying "angles" on the forum and actually meaning angles? 

The 3D wasn't bad. Had some cool moments, but I can understand people getting sick from it. Personally, I love roller coasters.

3D is a problem when you already wear glasses...

I'm thrilled that 3D is turning out to be just a fad.

Saw it.  Galadriel had too many wrinkles.

Other than that...not bad.  The movie, that is.