Tweet
Finally saw this and was disappointed after really enjoying the LOTR movies. I really wanted to like it, and kept waiting and waiting but what it finally came down to is I was just waiting for it to end. This could be due to it's 3 hour duration, which I didn't realize going in. Without going into specific criticisms, do any other Tolkien fans feel the same as I do? Are the sequels any better?
-
www.mediafire.com/buzzkill - Get your 32x32 tiles here. UT32 now compatible Ironband and Quickband 9/6/2012.
My banding life on Buzzkill's ladder. -
It's garbage. -
There were a couple of fun moments, but the increased reliance on really-obvious CGI[1] (vs. practical perspective effects, etc.) was incredibly jarring. Can't remember if it was present in the first one (you'll probably guess what I mean if it was), but there's a really sappy and totally invented storyline in there... which has absolutely no impact on the story. Ugh.
[1] Alright, there's some really good CGI in there as well, but its mostly cancelled out by the bad stuff in the more mundane scenes.Comment
-
I watched it up to the point where Legolas enters melee range before shooting at orcs. That was too much for me and I left.Comment
-
It's garbage, and each successive movie is worse than the last.
I'll just tell you now that the entire 3rd movie comprises something like 20-30 pages of the version of the Hobbit I have at home. And it's about the length of every other damned film Peter Jackson makes.
I have this wonderful (sad) image of Ian McKellan sitting at a table with a set of post-it notes on standees where he's talking to essentially CGI versions of Bilbo and the Dwarves in Hobbiton. I can't find it now, but it shouldn't be too hard to find on google.Last edited by nikheizen; December 22, 2016, 08:48.Comment
-
The first is sort of okay-ish in comparison. It gets worse. All three films are appallingly bloated and stuffed with ridiculous CGI action scenes, some of this mess probably was inevitable due to the decision to make three instead of two films.
Also, both the book and the films are dedicated to younger audiences, which may excuse some of daftness. But still, some of it is a pain to behold.Comment
-
The little rant I had typed up got eaten, so I'll just agree with everyone else.
I for one never even bothered with the third movie.Comment
-
I've never seen such harmonious agreement in an oook thread before.Comment
-
Extremely disappointing if you expect it to be half as good as LoTR. I didn't totally hate it, but I had to let go of expectations that it was a) going to be great b) going to be recognizable as the classic children's tale called the Hobbit that we all know and love.
It all went down hill when the White Orc became a character. ugh.Comment
-
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.Comment
-
Can I chip in with a counter opinion?
Even though the movies were flawed and had some bad scenes (giant golden dwarf, collapsing bridge etc) I enjoyed them a lot, especially the first of the three.
A.Ironband - http://angband.oook.cz/ironband/Comment
-
Happy New Year, Antoine
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.Comment
-
-
I enjoyed the second movie the best, mostly because the scene with Beorn's Budweiser horses made me laugh.
I really liked the first LOTR movie, and the third was pretty good, too, but I really disliked the changes they made in the Two Towers.
The Hobbit movies feel like they played the Lego LOTR video game and decided to make a movie like it. The action is often nonsensical.
Also, Happy New Years everyone.Comment
-
Even though it wasn't faithful to the book and horribly unrealistic, I thought the barrel rider scene was good fun. Laketown was well done too. Of all the metastases from the book, that was probably the one I was happiest to see.Comment
Comment