Excluding the army of scrubbing bubbles? Honestly I don't remember it. Most of the battle scenes in LOTR just sort of run together to me.
The Hobbit movies
-
-
The Hobbit: Hey Do You Think We Could Make a Fourth Movie that Shows What Happens to the Lonely Mountain during the War of the Ring
moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon
-
@Print:
The Hobbit: Hey Do You Think We Could Make a Fourth Movie that Shows What Happens to the Lonely Mountain during the War of the Ring
"The Hobbit 4: Because if Star Wars can get at least 7 movies, why can't we?"
Hmm, I don't actually remember the battle being that big in the book. Then again, I don't remember the book being nearly enough material for three movies, even with the extras being thrown in. Guess they'll expand a lot into it.
! Mainly the parts where Bilbo is KO'd
-
Argh… Why was I reminded of the awful Jackson Hobbit movies with this thread?
I saw the first one during Christmas - I was probably the only guy there, since Christmas is a big deal in my country and whatever - but it was THE Hobbit, the movie from a guy that made my favourite fantasy series! And now he put my favourite of Tolkien's books on screen! I watched... and I wept. I don't even want to start rambling, there's just too much to say.
But still - I wanted to see the second one, just because it was still Peter, he still deserved as much for his LoTR trilogy!
Went, wept with friends and called bullshit a hundred times.
Fuck this, I'm pirating the third movie and I'll be damned if Jackson gets my money for anything Hobbit related.
-
I haven't read much of this thread to get your opinions, but I'm guessing that I'm probably alone in enjoying these new Hobbit movies.
I really liked both of them so far.
-
I haven't read much of this thread to get your opinions, but I'm guessing that I'm probably alone in enjoying these new Hobbit movies.
I really liked both of them so far.
Well, it's always the few questions that need to be asked when talking to someone who enjoys the Hobbit movies - did you read the book before? And if so - did you like what Jackson did to Beorn in the movie? How he changed the focus of the movie from Bilbo to anything else besides him? How he cut out Bilbo's best moment of creating a plan for Dwarves to escape from Elves? How he dumbed down Smaug and ended it with this, well, silly moment with the golden statue?
No, I'm not trying to say you shouldn't enjoy this movie - I just want to understand why didn't you find it awful, how could you close your eyes on so many silly moments. But it seems like most of my questions depend on if you have read Tolkien's Hobbit.
-
Let's be honest, the Hobbit–book or movie--is horrible compared to The Lord of the Rings anyway.
In my opinion, The Lord of the Rings is upon the pinnacle of what the fantasy genre (the high fantasy genre anyway) should be, and The Hobbit is kinda-sorta far from the pinnacle as possible.
-
I didn't find desolation as a whole to be awful. Sure it had its vague moments, but i did enjoy it as a whole. This is mainly because i did not go with much expectations to see the film in the first place.
-
Hobbit and LotR are two very different different books… that happen to be connected. There really isn't much comparing the two, they're very different.
ANyway, I've enjoyed the movies thus far.
-
I mean, I haven't seen the movies yet (missed the first one so waiting on the third one so I can go at it all at once), but it just seems excessive to have three movies devoted to the subject.
But I will definitely say that as a fantasy sorta thing, of course the Hobbit isn't going to match up to LOTR. But as a story I found it pretty damn enjoyable, perhaps even more so because of its simplicity. It's just this lazy guy getting thrust into an adventure he knows basically nothing about with events he definitely didn't sign up for. That's of course my own personal preference, but I definitely wouldn't categorize The Hobbit as horrible compared to LOTR. It just seems like they tried to make the Hobbit wear the same makeup and clothes as LOTR when it doesn't fit the story at all.
-
@Aru:
Well, it's always the few questions that need to be asked when talking to someone who enjoys the Hobbit movies - did you read the book before? And if so - did you like what Jackson did to Beorn in the movie? How he changed the focus of the movie from Bilbo to anything else besides him? How he cut out Bilbo's best moment of creating a plan for Dwarves to escape from Elves? How he dumbed down Smaug and ended it with this, well, silly moment with the golden statue?
No, I'm not trying to say you shouldn't enjoy this movie - I just want to understand why didn't you find it awful, how could you close your eyes on so many silly moments. But it seems like most of my questions depend on if you have read Tolkien's Hobbit.
I did read the Hobbit. It was the first of the Tolkien books that I read. But I can't say that I've reread it, so a lot of the details are a little fuzzy to me.
I will admit that I was really unimpressed with the treatment of Beorn. I remember him being one of my favorite characters. I won't deny that Jackson has really disappointed me on many things throughout the movies. Nothing was more disappointing for me than how he completely left out Tom Bombadil and also the conflict upon the return to the Shire after the One Ring was destroyed.
I don't know. I do think it's a little silly that he's drawing this one book out into three separate movies. And it does suck that Bilbo hasn't really had his moment to shine as a brilliant strategist.
But I still find the movies immensely entertaining, and I love the way that everything is animated. I can sort of imagine being in Middle Earth when I watch them. And I also really liked the treatment of the return of Sauron the Necromancer. The confrontation between him and Gandalf in the latest movie was really awesome, for me.
-
The Lord of the Rings books suck. They're amateurishly written, horribly paced, lack any sort of character development and come off like a birdwatcher's guide rather than an epic adventure. They walk and sing and dance and sight-see then they walk and sing some more. There's no sense of tension or dramatic build up. Also Tom Bombadil. Peter Jackson gets all the credit in the world for being able to take this dry material and make three well-structured movies out of them (albeit with flaws here and there). And cutting out Tom Bombadil.
Hobbit, I've never read the book so I can't compare but the movies are abysmally slow though. And I was patient but it's been five and a half hours and the dragon has yet to attack the village. The last 45 minutes were as an overly long chase sequence. It's just stretching the material far past its breaking point to pad out the time. This story could have been told in one movie or two three hour movies or even three two hour movies. But three three hour movies is just self-indulgence at this point. We know you love the material Jackson but a good director knows when and where to use the editing scissors.
And yeah, I know I'll take heat for bashing Tolkien. It took me six months to get through the trilogy, they were that boring, it took me far less to get through all of ASOIAF. It takes me only a week to get through some of the better Terry Pratchett books.
-
I will never understand complaining about Tom Bombadill being cut from the films. He's fucking DEATH to the momentum of the story in the books, and he'd be even worse on film.
The characters have finally been told there's danger, get the group together, head out, start seeing some scary things after like an hour of setup… and then this nice guy comes along that feeds them, sings a bunch of silly songs and plays with his wife, keeps them cozy for the night, makes light of the powers of the ring, and then vanishes from the narrative entirely without any explanation for what he is. That would have been like a 15-20 minute detour in the film right when its starting to get going for absolutely no reward or payoff. (Treebeard gets some of the same material anyway.) Its one of the far more sensible cuts, and would have been the first thing I'd cut in charge of the adaptation as well.
(Though a cameo of a guy in a yellow hat at the end of the films would have been fine I'd think.)
(Similarly, Faramir being scary and dangerous in Two Towers instead of a nice "here, have a comfy nap" guy was to keep the momentum from dying on the spot.)
As for the scouring of the shire... same sort of thing. People don't grasp that sure, its just one chapter in the book, but, the return trip home (Which was like a hundred pages of just saying hello again to characters we'd already met without any momentum) and doing that, to do it right with seeing the destruction, gathering a army, having the battle against Sarumon (which was kind of tedious honestly and was pretty much in the film anyway) and all the rest would add another 40-60 minutes to the film and dozens of extra characters... AFTER having spent 10 hours building up the ring... plus you'd ditch the entire cast sans hobbits at that point, and then AFTER that was done, THEN you'd get to the epilogues that people already complained about being too long.
Yes, it was important to the overall tone of the book and the message at the end that war has costs to everyone, but.. it was also an incredibly convoluted extra sequence that would not have been put onto film with any ease or pace. That only would have worked if the whole thing was a 30-part miniseries Game of Thrones style... that NEVER would have worked in the movies... at all. (ANd they conveyed the costs thing pretty well in Frodo)
I don't know. I do think it's a little silly that he's drawing this one book out into three separate movies. And it does suck that Bilbo hasn't really had his moment to shine as a brilliant strategist.
But… he wasn't a brilliant strategist? He just sort of lucked into most of his wins. In the second half his strategy is "I'm invisible and no one knows I can do that."
-
@TLC:
And yeah, I know I'll take heat for bashing Tolkien.
You shouldn't. As far as I've ever been able to tell, it's a pretty general consensus that Tolkien wasn't particularly good (to understate it) as an author. The praise that gets deservedly heaped in his direction is for his ability to craft a world, but that's very much not the same as being able to write well.
-
The One Ring is a tool of incredible evil and power, no one can wield it without being corrupted by its decadent force.
What, this little thing? picks it up Whatever. Hiho the merry ho.
Cutting him out is the smartest adaptation choice in the history of cinema.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Panda:
You shouldn't. As far as I've ever been able to tell, it's a pretty general consensus that Tolkien wasn't particularly good (to understate it) as an author. The praise that gets deservedly heaped in his direction is for his ability to craft a world, but that's very much not the same as being able to write well.
Oh sure, once we get past the Shire and it's forty types of hobbits and the overly long description of the trees and the grass and the bushes and get to the rest of the world, it is an intricately crafted world. It's just a shame that most of it wasn't really well integrated into the plot and just comes off as excessive detail. George R. R. Martin said in an interview once when asked about how he compares himself to Tolkien, he flat out said the difference is that he actually tries to use all the stuff he writes in lol.
-
Tolkien gets all the credit that he deserves for building a world and setting the archetype that pretty much everyone has stolen from since. For good or ill, he pretty much set the precedent for the last century of fantasy literature.
Hell, Tolkiens Elves and Dwarves are so embedded now we can't get anything else.
@TLC:
The Lord of the Rings books suck. They're amateurishly written, horribly paced, lack any sort of character development and come off like a birdwatcher's guide rather than an epic adventure.
They're VERY well written in terms of world building. The problem is that, yes, Tolkien (and he said this himself) was using the world to show off the languages he invented, rather than to tell a story.
Its incredibly unconventional pacing and it works in the tradition of the ancient clasics like Beowulf or the Illiad. Less so as adventure novels.
That said, I read them in fifth grade, and then again 20 years later. Was bored both times. Wanted to love them. Just couldn't.
Hobbit is a totally different animal, you should give it a shot some time. Or just watch the Rankin Bass cartoon, that pretty much covers it.
-
I got through the Hobbit novel easily and quickly. In Lord of the Rings, i made it 50 pages in; they were just about to leave the shire, it was all discussions on Pipe Weeds and hobbit lineages and songs, and I just couldn't make it.
For the movies, I will forever cherish the LOTR trilogy, quite possibly due to my nonexistent expectations, and while I will never call the Hobbit trilogy bad movies, they definetely feel bloated. Like, if it had to be 3 movies, it should've been 3 two-hour movies.
-
Just 2 movies? Sorry to jump in so sudden and I might not be saying anything new, but nevertheless I wouldn't be expecting for them to be that good. Not that I remember it that well, but either way I think it's a waste to not utilize all parts of book for at least 4 movies.
Well whatever, I'm sure rereading the book could be more fun than watching those movies. -
I love the LOTR books. Sure, they have issues, 'too much journey', so to speak, meaning not every path and track and road they take must be described and all thats in them. But dunno, they are such a joy to read. The very first line of the book is so darn jolly.
The Hobbit was so so. The films thus far? Meh. I absolutely do not give a damn about Thorin. He is an unlikable douche. And that whole underground goblin sequence? Stupid and not even in the book. For Christ's sake, they fell on a wooden thing from such a height that they should all be dead. Sure, Legolas sled down on shield in Two Towers, but this is pushing it.
-
@TLC:
The One Ring is a tool of incredible evil and power, no one can wield it without being corrupted by its decadent force.
What, this little thing? picks it up Whatever. Hiho the merry ho.
Cutting him out is the smartest adaptation choice in the history of cinema.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Oh sure, once we get past the Shire and it's forty types of hobbits and the overly long description of the trees and the grass and the bushes and get to the rest of the world, it is an intricately crafted world. It's just a shame that most of it wasn't really well integrated into the plot and just comes off as excessive detail. George R. R. Martin said in an interview once when asked about how he compares himself to Tolkien, he flat out said the difference is that he actually tries to use all the stuff he writes in lol.
Well…The Lord of the Rings is really just a giant, GIANT metaphor for the Christian religion. So... I mean... There's a reason Gondor are wearing angel armor, and live in cities of sparkling white, and the men that serve Sauron all look Middle Eastern and represent Islam.
Also. Tom Bombadil being a metaphor for the Christian God.
-
The worst part about the movie's bloat is… since there were extended cuts ANYWAY.... could have had trimmer 2 hour theatrical versions and then juicy bloated 3 hour home versions.
Having 3 hour theatrical versions and then 3.5 hour home versions is crazy. I'm glad the content is there, but... yeah.
On the upside, after they're all released there's going to be some amazing fan edits.
@The:
Well…The Lord of the Rings is really just a giant, GIANT metaphor for the Christian religion.
When did Tolkien say that?
-
@Rob:
The worst part about the movie's bloat is… since there were extended cuts ANYWAY.... could have had trimmer 2 hour theatrical versions and then juicy bloated 3 hour home versions.
Having 3 hour theatrical versions and then 3.5 hour home versions is crazy. I'm glad the content is there, but... yeah.
On the upside, after they're all released there's going to be some amazing fan edits.
When did Tolkien say that?
He never flat out said it, but he did say he was a Christian and a somewhat devout follower of the Christian belief system. Also, if you just look closely at the series and some of the characters, places, and the storyline in general, you should be able to clearly see that his faith had A LOT of influence on the writing of the series.
-
If Tolkien never said it, then its just speculation. Tokien drew from a bunch of religions and classics of literature in his world building. First time I've ever heard someone claim Bombadil was supposed to be god. That's just… weird.
That's like everyone that pretends Wizard of Oz was secretly a political satire on monetary reform. (Even though the theory didn't come about till FIFTY years later...)
As opposed to Narnia where its 100% clearly christian allegory and the author was very upfront about it.
-
Yeah I was gonna say, I know Tolkien's a big Christian and all, but you'd have to scratch your nails pretty hard and dig pretty deep to relate the Christian views, especially as opposed to CS Lewis.
-
@The:
Well…The Lord of the Rings is really just a giant, GIANT metaphor for the Christian religion. So... I mean... There's a reason Gondor are wearing angel armor, and live in cities of sparkling white, and the men that serve Sauron all look Middle Eastern and represent Islam.
Also. Tom Bombadil being a metaphor for the Christian God.
Even if I accept the metaphor (which I find kind of tenuous), you need to integrate that into a plot somehow, give it some sort of point. Like for example, make Bombadil this authoritative figure who subtly manipulates all the events that take place. Instead of a guy who just shows up of nowhere, kills the momentum, then leaves and does absolutely nothing in the rest of the books.
-
@Rob:
If Tolkien never said it, then its just speculation. Tokien drew from a bunch of religions and classics of literature in his world building. First time I've ever heard someone claim Bombadil was supposed to be god. That's just… werid.
That's like everyone that pretends Wizard of Oz was secretly a political satire on monetary reform.
As opposed to Narnia where its 100% clearly christian allegory and the author was very upfront about it.
Not to disagree with you, as I don't, but I am a little surprised that you've never heard of that theory before. I've seen people tossing around the representation of Tom basically being some sort of Jesus stand-in relatively frequently.
-
Tolkien hated allegory, anyway. He preferred applicability.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Panda:
Not to disagree with you, as I don't, but I am a little surprised that you've never heard of that theory before. I've seen people tossing around the representation of Tom basically being some sort of Jesus stand-in relatively frequently.
Tolkien actually debunked that Tom Bombadil was a Jesus/God stand-in, if I recall correctly.
-
@Cyan:
Tolkien hated allegory, anyway. He preferred applicability.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Tolkien actually debunked that Tom Bombadil was a Jesus/God stand-in, if I recall correctly.
He simply said he would rather leave it as a mystery, the origins of Tom Bombadil and exactly what he is. He never really talked about the subject, because, to be honest, he did stop the action and progress of the story for a bit like TLC has been saying. Was probably not too fond of him himself. lol
-
Panda, I don't ever talk LotR outside of like, this thread. So nope, hadn't heard that before.
Seems rather insane.
-
@Rob:
On the upside, after they're all released there's going to be some amazing fan edits.
3 out of 4 edits will insert 15 minutes of Tom Bombadil scenes, made by, and starring, the editors themselves. Shot in the closest nearby forest or park.
-
Haha welp. I guess it's been a really long time since I read the books. My memories of them are probably dyed with a lot of nostalgia.
Robby, you're definitely right. On the accounts of having to cut those two pieces from the movies. And also on my recollection of Bilbo as a strategist.
I guess I remember him as a thinker in comparison to his companions. Sure, the dwarves were all brave, but they had incredible strength and constitution to back it up. Bilbo's strength was in his wits, which were the key to tricking Smaug in the Hobbit. Sure, he was a lucky hobbit, but he was uncommonly wily, IIRC.
-
I guess I remember him as a thinker in comparison to his companions. Sure, the dwarves were all brave, but they had incredible strength and constitution to back it up. Bilbo's strength was in his wits, which were the key to tricking Smaug in the Hobbit. Sure, he was a lucky hobbit, but he was uncommonly wily, IIRC.
I would be uncommonly wily, too, if I had a magic ring that turned me invisible.
-
Right, but, I mean, weren't most hobbits kind of portrayed as simpletons?
Bilbo could hold the interest of a dragon in conversation.
-
I'm hating the Hobbit adaptation not only because Jackson bloated it, but because he bloated the parts that shouldn't be bloated and shrunk down the ones that SHOULD be better shown! I understand that we need momentum and that the Dwarves spend a lot of time in Elf dungeons, but COME ON, there was a lot of ways to do it better! At least showing us that some time has passed, that Bilbo needed to spend a lot of time under the Ring's disguise, feeling worse, but still fighting to find a way to help them, to show Gandalf also weakened and that he couldn't help them… There were ways to make the prison actually scary, instead of spending there a few hours.
Also - I can eat popcorn. I can eat dwarves talking that "it was bad" and then a huge goblin body or whatever falls on them - that's slapstick popcorn. I can understand a Dwarf jumping out of the lake in a barrel, fighting in it like it was some weird armor, and then jumping again into the lake into a magically new and additional empty barrel. I can eat that.
What I can't eat is what Jackson did with the Elves. Listen, I know kids loved these guys in LOtR and I can see Jackson even back then had to constantly bite his own tongue to now make them ungodly powerful. Seems like he never bit his tongue here - ONE Elf in the Hobbit movies seems to be better than all of the Dwarves combined. And the whole jumping and skating on tree branches, Disney Tarzan style? Yeah, that was too much popcorn for me - I started barfing Jackson-movie-popcorn around the "jumping on Dwarf heads on a rushing river while shooting enemies" moment. -
Right, but, I mean, weren't most hobbits kind of portrayed as simpletons?
Bilbo could hold the interest of a dragon in conversation.
No doubt that Bilbo was a bit better than your average hobbit, but I wouldn't say that his stuff is truly exceptional. It's also stuff he kinda builds up from the rest of the trip. Kinda like the crew of hobbits in LOTR.
-
@Purple:
No doubt that Bilbo was a bit better than your average hobbit, but I wouldn't say that his stuff is truly exceptional. It's also stuff he kinda builds up from the rest of the trip. Kinda like the crew of hobbits in LOTR.
Yeah, and he did lean pretty heavily on the ring. I would probably be interested in a truly invisible hobbit, too, if I were a dragon.
I feel like I should reread these, now. At least the Hobbit, anyway.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@TLC:
Hobbit, I've never read the book so I can't compare but the movies are abysmally slow though. And I was patient but it's been five and a half hours and the dragon has yet to attack the village. The last 45 minutes were as an overly long chase sequence.
The insane dragged-out-ness is very much a product of Jackson's adaptation. It's been a while since I read the book in full, but I actually remember it being fairly consise and to-the-point, unlike The Lord of the Rings… And that overly long chase scene? Wasn't in the book. Pretty sure the confrontation with Smaug in the book was entirely between Bilbo and Smaug, and only consisted of Bilbo trying to trick Smaug and Smaug then eventually deciding "Oh, so you don't want me to kill the guys in the town eh? WELL THEN IMMA GO DO JUST THAT[/trollface]"
Actually when I last watched the movie, throughout that entire sequence I was only thinking… How could this be cut down to be more like the book? And I basically came to the conclusion that one could just cut from Bilbo, alone, trying to escape from Smaug, to him arriving in the throne room where Smaug decides that maybe he should pay Laketown a visit, and then just cut straight to him crashing through the outer wall of the mountain... Though that would leave the minor plot-hole of him suddenly being covered in molten gold for no reason...But yeah, for the record I generally enjoy these movies, even if An Unexpected Journey was on the whole WAY too slow, and The Desolation of Smaug had a completely ridiculous and overly dragged out climax that then just abruptly stops once they reach the point where they're finally covering what actually happened in the book again...But aside from this ridiculous climax, I enjoyed The Desolation of Smaug. I doubt the final movie will be as good though, simply because... how do you make a three-hour movie that is nothing but the story's climax? Really.
-
The Hobbit has none of the weight of the LOTR novels. It's just one of those things Tolkien wrote on a whim, starting it off on the back of students' papers. LOTR had a lot of stuff to cover and mythos to make up because at its heart is Tolkien's project of making his own epic poem basically. In contrast, The Hobbit's just a light adventure following the misadventures of Bilbo Baggins as he travels with 13 dwarves whose names strangely have a rhyming scheme. There are goblins, some weird hermit in the mountains who oddly enough likes riddle games and owns a magic ring that turns you invisible, a shapeshifting manbearperson, elves, magic swords that glow when goblins are around, a dragon, and gold, lots of gold. It's really just a nice romp around Middle Earth without necessarily all the implications that if this shit doesn't get done then the world is screwed.
Again, I haven't seen the Hobbit myself just yet, but it's pretty much my favorite thing Tolkien's written because of the nice simplicity and fun it has (plus the animated version's fun on its own, too). The marketing and style as well as making it a broad trilogy does seem to downplay that aspect of fun and the flavor/style that made it the Hobbit, though, by making it more LOTR in style for the movie-going audience, which takes away from Bilbo's spotlight because unlike his nephew who is tasked to basically destroy the last remnants of major evil in the world, the focus on him is usually him playing the straight man and everyman in the story.
-
The only good thing I can take from the movies being insanely bloated is that The Battle of Five Armies and The White Council assaulting Dol Guldur will most likely be incredible sequences in the last one.
-
@Purple:
The Hobbit has none of the weight of the LOTR novels. It's just one of those things Tolkien wrote on a whim, starting it off on the back of students' papers.
Tolkien was going to rewrite the entire book to resolve the differences in style and tone but the project fell through. As is, only the sequence with Gollum was ever completely overhauled and used to replace the original work.
Complicating things since 2009.
-
Tolkien was going to rewrite the entire book to resolve the differences in style and tone but the project fell through. As is, only the sequence with Gollum was ever completely overhauled and used to replace the original work.
Which is perfectly fine with me because… they're really different works, and there's no real need to resolve the differences in style imo. I think there were also some mentions of orcs in the revision vs goblins, but that didn't get too far either.
-
Trailer for the third movie!
-
I squeed when I saw the trailer! happy jelly-legs dance it's gonna be very painful to watch, for sure! Reading it's one thing.. I gotta say, Peter Jackson's done a great job in emphasizing the aspects of the story that have the greatest impact in the characters' emotions, thoughts, decision-making, etc. He got non-readers can understand the magnitude of the dwarves' desire to reclaiming their home. The way Desolation ended, shucks…! It still brings me close to tears. :D I'm just so excited for the movie!!
-
That color palette makes the world look so utterly CGI. Even the sky. What the hell.
I am so utterly whatever about this movie. The last two movies had their moments and sequences, but largely it's been lackluster. There's just something about how this trilogy is written that irks me. It's hard not to compare it to LOTR - not from a point of view of the atmosphere and whatnot, but the characters and the execution.
That evil human-king/prime minister dude at the lake town was so obnoxious, so was his servant. Bard irks me. Thorin is unlikable.
-
Well, that looks even worse. I have absolutely no interest in this movie after the last two ones. Looks like too much CGI, bullshit love story once again and even more HERP DERP LORD OF THE RINGS. This isn't the adventure I wanted, after reading the books. I can understand the changes in LoTR, because there was a lot of unnecessary things to cut, but here? They CUT OUT some of the things that would work awesome in such long movies… This one looks like just a huge battle, guess that's really what's left.
-
That color palette makes the world look so utterly CGI. Even the sky. What the hell.
That evil human-king/prime minister dude at the lake town was so obnoxious, so was his servant. Bard irks me. Thorin is unlikable.
I kind of agree with this. There certainly lacks what made original LotR movies feel filmed on-location.
And yeah, as one of the main protagonists Thorin is rather meh character.
I actually don't like the dwarves at all. Bilbo, I like but mostly because Martin Freeman has the easy charm.As for the Bard, I like him more than all dwarves combined.
-
The last sentence of this trailer made tear up, cause it'll be the last Peter Jackson - LotR movie. All this years you get used to it. An epic fantasy-movie with all your favourite actors and stories will appear at christmas time. And now after that thing aired…. nothing. What will fill this gap??
“As I stand out here in the wonders of the unknown at Hadley, I sort of realize there’s a fundamental truth to our nature: Man must explore!” – David Scott, Moon
-
The last sentence of this trailer made tear up, cause it'll be the last Peter Jackson - LotR movie. All this years you get used to it. An epic fantasy-movie with all your favourite actors and stories will appear at christmas time. And now after that thing aired…. nothing. What will fill this gap??
16 characters of Star Wars
-
Jesus christ the CGI doesn't even look GOOD.
