Irvy
Super Freak
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
I don't think it was, not ashamed to say I started tearing up like a big girl at that point and not many movies have had that effect on me
The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*
- Thread starter The Ringer
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2010
- Messages
- 11,044
- Reaction score
- 15
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Reading all the critics reviews not hating it really but dissapointed I could see PJ trying to in the next 2 films giving them what they want...he certainly has time to do so...I still say the more ME the merrier! Will see this later today
Reading all the critics reviews not hating it really but dissapointed I could see PJ trying to in the next 2 films giving them what they want...he certainly has time to do so...I still say the more ME the merrier! Will see this later today
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Not really. He already filmed most of the other movies already. They filmed them back to back, if I recall, and I think now are adding more to lengthen the running time for each.
Not really. He already filmed most of the other movies already. They filmed them back to back, if I recall, and I think now are adding more to lengthen the running time for each.
JonWes
Super Freak
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2009
- Messages
- 4,688
- Reaction score
- 18
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
I honestly think that sometimes viewers and critics (none in this thread, necessarily, mind you) let the narrative weaved by the pre-press and early critics shade their viewing of a movie. I guarantee there are reviewers out there who, had they not been told Jackson added stuff not in the book, would have been none the wiser. They think it's "too long" because they know stuff was added.
I just don't see any excess fat to be trimmed here. I was HIGHLY skeptical when they made it three movies, but having seen it now I totally understand. I had just read The Hobbit again recently, and there is just a lot there if you actually show things and don't just summarize things. And all the added stuff which I feared would feel superflous, as though it belonged in another movie, just added some nice depth and texture and was worked into the story seamlessly for me.
Looks like the movie will make 96-100m at the box office this weekend in the US and will break December records. And it has a CinemaScore of an "A"!
https://www.deadline.com/2012/12/th...dnight-u-s-canada-opening-sets-december-mark/
I honestly think that sometimes viewers and critics (none in this thread, necessarily, mind you) let the narrative weaved by the pre-press and early critics shade their viewing of a movie. I guarantee there are reviewers out there who, had they not been told Jackson added stuff not in the book, would have been none the wiser. They think it's "too long" because they know stuff was added.
I just don't see any excess fat to be trimmed here. I was HIGHLY skeptical when they made it three movies, but having seen it now I totally understand. I had just read The Hobbit again recently, and there is just a lot there if you actually show things and don't just summarize things. And all the added stuff which I feared would feel superflous, as though it belonged in another movie, just added some nice depth and texture and was worked into the story seamlessly for me.
Looks like the movie will make 96-100m at the box office this weekend in the US and will break December records. And it has a CinemaScore of an "A"!
https://www.deadline.com/2012/12/th...dnight-u-s-canada-opening-sets-december-mark/
jnmx2000
Super Freak
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,061
- Reaction score
- 6
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
but yet the extended cuts of the original trilogy are far better than the shorter cuts, and ROTK is 4 hours. But some people have there preference I guess.
but yet the extended cuts of the original trilogy are far better than the shorter cuts, and ROTK is 4 hours. But some people have there preference I guess.
intothevoid
Super Freak
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Yeah but those stories have a LOT more depth to them anyway. The books are much denser and longer are they not?
From my understanding stretching out The Hobbit to 9 hours of film is the equivalent of stretching LOTR to 27 hours of film (Basic google search tells me LOTR is over 1000 pages and Hobbit is about 300).
Now I get The Hobbit is more a children's book and therefore is light on detail etc, so many things have to be 'fleshed out' to work on film, but even accounting for that, it just doesn't make logical sense as to why it should be so long. If I didn't feel like the film dragged then I would have admitted that the long runtime is not an issue. But to both myself and my wife, it DID drag a lot, in numerous parts
I find this review by Mark Kermode spot on to my feelings:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muD8SHUV3YU[/ame]
Yeah but those stories have a LOT more depth to them anyway. The books are much denser and longer are they not?
From my understanding stretching out The Hobbit to 9 hours of film is the equivalent of stretching LOTR to 27 hours of film (Basic google search tells me LOTR is over 1000 pages and Hobbit is about 300).
Now I get The Hobbit is more a children's book and therefore is light on detail etc, so many things have to be 'fleshed out' to work on film, but even accounting for that, it just doesn't make logical sense as to why it should be so long. If I didn't feel like the film dragged then I would have admitted that the long runtime is not an issue. But to both myself and my wife, it DID drag a lot, in numerous parts
I find this review by Mark Kermode spot on to my feelings:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muD8SHUV3YU[/ame]
Irvy
Super Freak
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
The way I see it we're not just getting a trilogy based on the hobbit book though. They're interweaving plot strands that lay the foundation for events that kick off in LOTR so as to make it all fit together better within PJ's movieverse. Sort of a hobbit+ edition.
The way I see it we're not just getting a trilogy based on the hobbit book though. They're interweaving plot strands that lay the foundation for events that kick off in LOTR so as to make it all fit together better within PJ's movieverse. Sort of a hobbit+ edition.
I disagree when it comes to Fellowship. The Theatrical cut of that one is pretty much a perfect movie. There is a magic and charm (particularly in the first act) that is completely lost for me with the EE.
In some ways, Hobbit: UJ feels like that. The first 45 mins drag and it would likely have benefited from some cutting. It already feels like an EE. There is just so much extraneous exposition and odd pacing. When a movie takes nearly an hour to basically feel like it's just starting that's a problem.
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
That was literally the fastest three hours I have *ever* spent in a movie theater. As the movie was about to end I sat there thinking, "it can't be almost over, it's been what, two hours so far, can't wait to see the
and then bam it was done. I was shocked.
An amazing movie that did a better job than the book in many parts. It seemed much less corny in the movie when
I was really bummed that we didn't get to see Bilbo face
though.
Agreed. I consider theatrical FOTR to be up there with other "perfect" movies such as ESB, Raiders, and Jaws.
That was literally the fastest three hours I have *ever* spent in a movie theater. As the movie was about to end I sat there thinking, "it can't be almost over, it's been what, two hours so far, can't wait to see the
spiders
An amazing movie that did a better job than the book in many parts. It seemed much less corny in the movie when
the heroes conveniently found all the epic magic weapons just a day or two prior to meeting the Goblin King who specifically feared such blades. The battles in the goblin kingdom translated much better on screen (in eye popping 3D) than in the book as well.
I was really bummed that we didn't get to see Bilbo face
the spiders in this one
Agreed. I consider theatrical FOTR to be up there with other "perfect" movies such as ESB, Raiders, and Jaws.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2010
- Messages
- 11,044
- Reaction score
- 15
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
IMHO the more Middle Earth the merrier..."F" them critics...I like how it has problems but is thoroughly enjoyable....beginning sucks or slow for lots of these guys....tough...lots of great films started out that way...cant wait to see this in a couple of hours
IMHO the more Middle Earth the merrier..."F" them critics...I like how it has problems but is thoroughly enjoyable....beginning sucks or slow for lots of these guys....tough...lots of great films started out that way...cant wait to see this in a couple of hours
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
I actually agree that this one felt like an "EE" but I loved the whole thing so much I wouldn't specifically want anything cut. I actually feel like The Hobbit: UJ feels like one massive "FOTR Prologue:EE," basically Galadriel's opening narrative in FOTR expanded to three hours which I actually consider a good thing. I'm just so endeared to Jackson's take on the world I feel it's possibly the *best* of the EE's.
The past EE's have actually all included scenes that actually diminished other parts of their respective films. The Hobbit took a while to get going but I feel that each individual sequence had value in and of itself and enhanced the whole. It was nice to see so much of the movie featuring the peaceful version of Middle-Earth, which we only saw a scant few minutes of in the entire LOTR.
I actually agree that this one felt like an "EE" but I loved the whole thing so much I wouldn't specifically want anything cut. I actually feel like The Hobbit: UJ feels like one massive "FOTR Prologue:EE," basically Galadriel's opening narrative in FOTR expanded to three hours which I actually consider a good thing. I'm just so endeared to Jackson's take on the world I feel it's possibly the *best* of the EE's.
The past EE's have actually all included scenes that actually diminished other parts of their respective films. The Hobbit took a while to get going but I feel that each individual sequence had value in and of itself and enhanced the whole. It was nice to see so much of the movie featuring the peaceful version of Middle-Earth, which we only saw a scant few minutes of in the entire LOTR.
Last edited:
intothevoid
Super Freak
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Well F the critics all you want but to ME it dragged. But I can totally understand the lovers of the book enjoying the extra runtime.
I'm just expressing my thoughts on it as a FILM. Not as an adaptation of a book. There is a big difference.
Well F the critics all you want but to ME it dragged. But I can totally understand the lovers of the book enjoying the extra runtime.
I'm just expressing my thoughts on it as a FILM. Not as an adaptation of a book. There is a big difference.
intothevoid
Super Freak
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Yeah, furthermore, it is the job of critics to do the same - to judge the films as films.
People tend to forget this important distinction.
Yeah, furthermore, it is the job of critics to do the same - to judge the films as films.
Incidentally, no one was saying "f them critics" (the very same critics, mind you) when they were unanimously praising the LOTR movies.
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Well that's because they were right then.
Well that's because they were right then.
Yeah, yeah...
jye4ever
Broke and happy
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
I wonder if an EE is being discussed for this movie because it's really needed to make it a better movie, or is it because it's LOTR and EE is just expected now even if not required.
I wonder if an EE is being discussed for this movie because it's really needed to make it a better movie, or is it because it's LOTR and EE is just expected now even if not required.
I don't know. It really could go either way, I guess.
One thing's for sure, though... some people literally can't get enough Middle Earth. These movies could be 15 hours long each and they'd be cool with it. Jackson obviously knows this, so I think he's always put as much as he can into the EEs mainly for this reason and to put as much of the books onscreen as possible.
One thing's for sure, though... some people literally can't get enough Middle Earth. These movies could be 15 hours long each and they'd be cool with it. Jackson obviously knows this, so I think he's always put as much as he can into the EEs mainly for this reason and to put as much of the books onscreen as possible.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
LOTR trilogy benefited greatly from EE.
With Hobbit already being labled as bloated, maybe this was the EE already.
Does PJ consider the LOTR EE as his directors cut, or just a gift for da fans?
LOTR trilogy benefited greatly from EE.
With Hobbit already being labled as bloated, maybe this was the EE already.
Does PJ consider the LOTR EE as his directors cut, or just a gift for da fans?
Similar threads
