hobbit, part iii (the movie)

[taptap]

part i and ii had a thread, but apparently noone even watched part iii

[wobbly]

Hey I didn't even watch part 2 I was that disappointed with the 1st part...

So worth it? I'll probably get round to watching them eventually.

[Thraalbee]

I saw all of them. I find the third ok, definitely better than nbr two.

[bio_hazard]

I saw them all- thought 3 was a lot tighter than the others (as it should be, since it was like 2 or 3 chapters of the book!) and like the others not as good as LoTR. Just get over thinking it is going to be like the book and accept that it is Peter Jackson Fan Fiction Set In The Time Of The Hobbit, and it is reasonably entertaining.

I'm sure I'll get the extended editions too, and I really hope some other director gets to try again someday, and without the studios forcing it to be so obnoxiously long and bloated.

[Derakon]

I really hope some other director gets to try again someday, and without the studios forcing it to be so obnoxiously long and bloated.

I give it twenty years, max, before we're mining the 2010 decade for nostalgia value.

[nppangband]

I give it twenty years, max, before we're mining the 2010 decade for nostalgia value.

Someday I will create NPPTheHobbit by taking all three movies and editing them down to a 2 part, 5-6 hour movie. There is a great movie in there somewhere, but the whole thing was about 2-3 hours too long.

[bio_hazard]

You aren't the only one with that idea.

[Derakon]

Someday I will create NPPTheHobbit by taking all three movies and editing them down to a 2 part, 5-6 hour movie. There is a great movie in there somewhere, but the whole thing was about 2-3 hours too long.

You mean like this?

[taptap]

in the hobbit series i enjoyed the first part most, especially some of the calmer moments in it. by part iii i was already resigned to watching a fantasy-action movie loosely based on the hobbit, what spoils it for me, is not length, difference in tone to the book etc., but that even the action is just so mindboggingly stupid.

everyone is now on the level of legolas in lotr films and legolas is superman. bilbo taking out rather sizeable enemies reliably with stonethrows, but despite this apparent danger of ranged attacks (at least bows are now increasingly used at range!) heroes still don't wear helmets. bows are still used for silly action movie standoffs at full draw. thorin sends away half of his small group when attacked by a 100 orcs (in part i thorin was "do you think a night raid by orcs is a joke", he must have had serious level ups in between)... in short all this is about as epic as infinite hitpoints + infinite damage playthrough would be in angband.

[nppangband]

You mean like this?

Brilliant. Thank you.

[EpicMan]

But do the Budweiser horses save the dwarves again in part 3?

Hobbit 1 was loosely based on what somebody thought the hobbit could have been, Hobbit 2 was when it became dumb enough to be funny.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

It's really too bad. Peter Jackson did fans of the books proud in the LOTR movies (apart from a few nits that I had with them, like the enormously long ending, besmirching the character of Faramir, and the idea that Frodo is seen nearly giving the ring to a Nazgul and is then helped along his way by those who saw this). The Hobbit movies, I think, make most fans of the book want to retch.

[AnonymousHero]

It's really too bad. Peter Jackson did fans of the books proud in the LOTR movies (apart from a few nits that I had with them, like the enormously long ending, besmirching the character of Faramir, and the idea that Frodo is seen nearly giving the ring to a Nazgul and is then helped along his way by those who saw this). The Hobbit movies, I think, make most fans of the book want to retch.

I largely agree, though the seemingly-long-ending to ROTK actually seemed a lot better to me with the Extended Edition of ROTK. I don't know if it was the general pacing of the film being extended or just that I anticipated some of the "interludes" in the whole ending, but I liked it a lot better the second time around. Did you have multiple viewings?

Hobbit wasn't vomit-inducing to me, but I can see how that would be the case. I didn't begin with any expectations and just saw it as an action movie set in Middle Earth, though beholden to some crucial plot points. (I had read The Hobbit beforehand. I just consciously chose to separate the films from the books.)

[taptap]

It's really too bad. Peter Jackson did fans of the books proud in the LOTR movies (apart from a few nits that I had with them, like the enormously long ending, besmirching the character of Faramir, and the idea that Frodo is seen nearly giving the ring to a Nazgul and is then helped along his way by those who saw this). The Hobbit movies, I think, make most fans of the book want to retch.

Wasn't the main part of the ending missing in LotR (Scouring of the Shire)?

[Ingwe Ingweron]

Wasn't the main part of the ending missing in LotR (Scouring of the Shire)?

Yes, the Scouring of the Shire was missing. In its place a third, sappy, sentimental ending. I saw its lack as a minor change though. Saruman was already dead in the movie by this point. It's only purpose, to me, would be to show that the hobbits had become competent and powerful in their own right, but even in the books I found it a little unbelievable that they could defeat Saruman even without his staff.