Follow Us on Twitter
Like Us on Facebook
I'll Start this off with saying that I am a big LOTR fan. I've torn through all three of the books, and would have no qualms setting aside the 12 hours to watch the extended version of the those movies.
For the most part I really enjoyed the two Hobbit movies, There and Back Again and The Desolation of Smaug.
I got to watch Battle of the Five Armies on Thursday... and while I did like the movie, I was kinda disappointed. I won't go into too much just yet as I want to hear a few other opinions. But if you've seen it and want to discuss please do. Just spoiler tag any plot content please.
#1
21 December 2014 - 03:29 AM
justvic77
-
- Members
-
- 4,792
Hallelujer! Im STILL Alive!
- LocationNashville, TN
The first step is the one you believe in, the second one might be profound.
#2
21 December 2014 - 08:18 PM
JesusMonroe
-
- Members
-
- 5,836
Hallelujer! Im STILL Alive!
I'll start this off by saying I'm not a huge LOTR fan (though Fellowship is one of my favorite movies) but I did read the Hobbit and I have seen all of the movies
I don't hate the Hobbit Trilogy as much as others do and I am planning on seeing the third movie Tuesday. I took the liberty of spoiling myself since I know how this all ends. The complaints seem valid for the most part; a good example is how the movie is mostly just action with little story. ROTK had a lot of action too, but it also had the Frodo/Sam/Golem subplot going on
Overall, I think the Hobbit trilogy is ok; they're definitely entertaining but drag on too long and definitely could've been condensed into two movies
Spoiler
I do want to say that these movies have made me a BIG Martin Freeman fan. He's such a phenomenal actor; the way he just walks around, evading Smaug, trying to talk to him, etc. He's the perfect Bilbo
Imagine a group of a hundred motorcycles driving down a freeway. Eventually, they hit a junction. One road goes northwest and the other goes northeast. So one guy, we'll call him S, says, "Let's go northwest!" A mile past the intersection, a semi careens into the group and kills ninety of them. Ten are wounded, but they survive and keep going. Eventually, they hit 10,000 miles. S suddenly has his consciousness thrown into his past body right before the junction. Now, he says, "Let's go northeast!" All 100 bikers survive. Happily ever after, right? But what about the ten, no nine, who went northwest and survived? What happens to the reality they were living? Does it just disappear now that S has changed the past? It's not like only bad things happened on that 10,000 mile journey. Maybe one of them fell in love with a gas station attendant and got her pregnant or maybe one adopted a homeless kid that joined the adventure. That 10,000 mile journey would be full of stories. Romances, farewells, friendships...the loss of those ninety lives is horrible and unfortunate, but what would rewriting their history mean? The nine who survived lived full lives and did the best they could with the hand they were dealt. How could it be right to just erase all that? Isn't that worth something? Is there a point to a world where everything is happy? Are people who struggle for a better life just idiots? Being human is about fighting even when it seems hopeless and finding happiness in a world that hates it. Are you saying that's worthless?
#3
22 December 2014 - 05:00 AM
justvic77
-
- Members
-
- 4,792
Hallelujer! Im STILL Alive!
- LocationNashville, TN
Yup...
I think the big difference in the trilogies for me, is LOTR is 3 massive movies based on 3 equally if not more massive books. The Hobbit trilogy is just one book for 3 large movies. There's a lot of content left out from LOTR: Tom Bombodil & the Barrow Downs, The Hunt for Gollum, and the Scouring of the Shire. Hell I would've loved to have seen a proper version of the Seige of Isengard. Would've been great to have another scene of McKellen and Lee, just killing it. The Hobbit, we're getting new content/characters. Just started to feel like filler in parts.
If you like Freeman now, you should check out the Sherlock series with him and Cumberbatch in it. It's technically a TV show, but they all run 90 minutes, so they're pretty much feature length.
Spoiler
I think the big difference in the trilogies for me, is LOTR is 3 massive movies based on 3 equally if not more massive books. The Hobbit trilogy is just one book for 3 large movies. There's a lot of content left out from LOTR: Tom Bombodil & the Barrow Downs, The Hunt for Gollum, and the Scouring of the Shire. Hell I would've loved to have seen a proper version of the Seige of Isengard. Would've been great to have another scene of McKellen and Lee, just killing it. The Hobbit, we're getting new content/characters. Just started to feel like filler in parts.
If you like Freeman now, you should check out the Sherlock series with him and Cumberbatch in it. It's technically a TV show, but they all run 90 minutes, so they're pretty much feature length.
The first step is the one you believe in, the second one might be profound.
#4
24 December 2014 - 03:11 PM
Mr. NomNom
-
- Members
-
- 2,390
Biter
- LocationOhio
The hobbit was basically the LOTR set up. The first hobbit movie felt like it's own....then they kept shadowing LOTR, in the last two. The second movie felt like complete filler to me. I understand that there is so much lore and you want to get what you can out there, it's just hard to sit through each movie almost going on 3 hrs.
