|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,030 Likes: 5
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,030 Likes: 5 |
I thought Peter Jackson should have been shot for what he did to the Hobbit, first installment. Making three full length movies out of a small book was nothing but blatant commercialism in the first place. From what I see of the second iteration, it will be even worse than the abomination the first one was. This adding new, and useless characters, such as the 'elf maiden', and the total travesty of turning the escape from the Elf King's underground fortress into something 180 out from what Tolkein wrote, is just awful. The hutzpah of Jackson, thinking he knows Tolkein's thoughts better than JRR did himself!!! ..........then, on the other hand, it's the only Hobbit movie out there. Yeah, I'll go, but I won't be happy with it.  I have not seen #2 yet, but my understanding was the first two movies covered the book, and number three was a completely new writing to cover the time between the Hobbit and TLOTR. Is this not correct?
Don't just be a survivor, be a competitor.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,102 Likes: 20
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,102 Likes: 20 |
I have not seen #2 yet. But Momma and I did just last night watch #1 again. I thoroughly enjoyed it and laughed out loud many times.
It is important to remember that Mr Tolkein wrote "The Hobbit" to entertain his young children. It is meant to be frivolous and silly in many respects, while still holding a serious moral and ethical message.
I have never seen a movie yet, which did not disappoint when compared side by side with the original novel. But yet, the movie is usually enjoyable in its own right.
In the case of Peter Jackson and his interpretation of Tolkien's work, the movies are well worth while just to see how Jackson has visualized Tolkien's characters.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,960 Likes: 8
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,960 Likes: 8 |
Well it does have a hot Elfen princess, I'm not recalling her from the book. Usually politically-correct "female warrior" type characters irritate me no end, but I'll cut this one some slack, I mean she's an elf. Sam can get irritated enough for both of us  Better than last year's Hobbit movie; less cartoonish fight scenes and what is in there is done tongue in cheek, except at the end. Smaug is well done, but I will say what I recall being absolutely riveted by in all them multiple readings of the book I did as a kid was the conversation between the burglar, Bilbo Baggins, and the awakening dragon. Didn't get that sense in this movie. Not sure the action scenes that follow are in the book either. Likewise some major scenes involving Gandalf didn't ring a bell, don't recall if they were in the book. We seen it for $5 each at the 9:30am show downtown. Money well spent, on balance its a decent flick. Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,785 Likes: 6
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,785 Likes: 6 |
I thought Peter Jackson should have been shot for what he did to the Hobbit, first installment. Making three full length movies out of a small book was nothing but blatant commercialism in the first place. From what I see of the second iteration, it will be even worse than the abomination the first one was. This adding new, and useless characters, such as the 'elf maiden', and the total travesty of turning the escape from the Elf King's underground fortress into something 180 out from what Tolkein wrote, is just awful. The hutzpah of Jackson, thinking he knows Tolkein's thoughts better than JRR did himself!!! ..........then, on the other hand, it's the only Hobbit movie out there. Yeah, I'll go, but I won't be happy with it. I have not seen #2 yet, but my understanding was the first two movies covered the book, and number three was a completely new writing to cover the time between the Hobbit and TLOTR. Is this not correct? I was understanding that the first 2 were for the book and the 3rd would be the time you mentioned. Sam...I don't think it was an Elf King's underground fortress. LOL...at your "I'll go, but I won't be happy with it"... Is that your sig line for life?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,612 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,612 Likes: 1 |
The acting in the first Hobbit seemed cartoonish compared to what Peter Jackson created in the LOTR series. I would say wooden rather than cartoonish. The escape from the goblins in the cave was cartoonish.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,033 Likes: 63
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,033 Likes: 63 |
The acting in the first Hobbit seemed cartoonish compared to what Peter Jackson created in the LOTR series. I would say wooden rather than cartoonish. The escape from the goblins in the cave was cartoonish. Yes, I will concede that.
|
|
|
|
|
545 members (10Glocks, 1lesfox, 10gaugemag, 1234, 1beaver_shooter, 1badf350, 51 invisible),
2,916
guests, and
1,111
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,604
Posts18,532,680
Members74,041
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image from ]]( https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Trump-Tweet-Image-Im-Just-in-the-Way-e1577149651503.jpg)