Re: The Hobbit

162
Alexhead wrote:I think I've decided I'm not going to watch any of these, ever.
Yup. Couldn't bring myself to watch any of the first one during the entirety of our three months of HBO this spring.
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

Re: The Hobbit

163
To be fair, you probably had your time eaten up by Game of Thrones and True Detective, but yeah, no more Peter Jackson CGI fests for me.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: The Hobbit

164
Aye, but I still found time for regular repeat viewings of Magic Mike, Pitch Perfect and Prometheus.
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

Re: The Hobbit

165
I've endured the first two, I figure I might as well stay on the train to the final derailment. But that second one was tough going. I'm glad I watched it at home. If it'd had to sit through the whole thing in a theater I would have gone nuts.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: The Hobbit

167
TC wrote:you thought the second one was worse than the first snore-fest?
Honestly they both kind of blur together in my mind. All I even remember about the first one was a lot of scenes of dwarves eating.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: The Hobbit

169
not that you guys aren't right, i see what you're saying for sure, but i liked the hobbit book much better so i'm seeing them. much to my great regret, in the case of the first one.

Re: The Hobbit

170
_Marcus_ wrote:Haven't seen any of them yet and nothing about these films makes me want to change that any time soon. And I liked the LOTR-films.
Same here.
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

Re: The Hobbit

174
saw this in IMAX 3D yesterday. first things first - it was a MUCH better movie than the other two put together. it was fun, there was some degree of actual joy in it. this one is actually worth seeing. it was bitter-sweet in that they did manage to close out the series strong but now it's over. there will be no more.

i did have problems with it, but the same problems that exist for this series in general and aren't specific to this film. i don't understand why some of the (major) changes and additions were necessary. trying to shoe-horn things into the story to tie the two trilogies together wasn't necessary. this film also underscored the fact that this ONE book did not need to be THREE movies. two at most, one long one with brisk editing, putting the additional footage on the DVDs like they did with LOTR films. a lot of crap in the first two hobbit films really leave a lasting bad taste in the mouth for the series, a bit of contempt given what they were able to accomplish with the LOTR trilogy. it felt like a cash grab and i can't forget that.

Tauriel is lovely to look at, but for a character that doesn't exist in the book, she certainly has a MAJOR part of the storyline shown in this film, starting from the second one. i feel like this plus shoehorning legolas into the story were completely unnecessary and done at the possible expense of other details.

for the massive promise of smaug in these films, he's featured very little. the dragon battle, while great to look at, was very short. a key driver of the main story is out very early. the eagles (the fifth army, from the title) are barely in this, maybe a minute of screen time and are certainly not presented as either an army or as having any vested interest in the outcome.

i don't know, i could nitpick the story to death, but it's jackson's interpretation, not necessarily a faithful adaptation. i get that. and it was cool to see sauromon, elrond, & galadriel fight, even if it was briefly. and again, this is a good film, as opposed to the other two that felt very tedious and drawn-out. it's just that some things are kind of inexplicable to me as far as why they were done. in the end, if you're at all into this universe, i'd say go see this one for sure on the largest format possible.

Re: The Hobbit

175
How much Radagast is in the film? Because honestly Sylvester McCoy is really the only thing that made the first two tolerable for me. I'm even more boggled by the fact that there are extended editions of the first two films. Did someone feel we missed out on watching dwarves eating a meal?
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: The Hobbit

177
I felt like the third one was ok again, but not great. This definitely did not need to be a movie trilogy. I really, really wish that del Toro could have directed these. They really needed a fresh voice.

Re: The Hobbit

179
I guess they figure no one's going to bother with the Man on Wire documentary. On the other hand, few people bothered with the Devil's Knot movie, not when they'd already seen the three Paradise Lost docs as well as West of Memphis.
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

Re: The Hobbit

180
That doc holds a special place in my heart. Great story, looking forward to the film.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."