- Joined
- Apr 24, 2001
- Posts
- 13,685
I assume they will call the second one: "Bilbo: Hobbit Part 2", and the third will simply be titled "Bilbo 3."
..it was the fastest 3 hours of my life.
So what are they going to call the next film?
Hobbit 2
Son of Hobbit?
Is this movie just going to be one movie or is it going to be another trilogy? If it is another trilogy, I'll wait for the Clerks 3 breakdown of the movies.
Good morning, Rip Van Winkle.Is this movie just going to be one movie or is it going to be another trilogy?
Taiso is a fan of the book, you can tell in his review. Those who haven't read it need to deduct 1 to 2 points from that review for what it's like.
Liar! lol
but look who is calling something verbose...
Good morning, Rip Van Winkle.
Nice assumption, but you would be wrong.
My friends were all Tolkein fans in high school but I didn't like it because I thought his work was too verbose. I preferred pulp adventure, stuff like Howard, Leiber and Lovecraft. Moorcock was another favorite.
I only read The Hobbit once and I never even finished Lord of the Rings.
So what now? You call me a liar?
I assume they will call the second one: "Bilbo: Hobbit Part 2", and the third will simply be titled "Bilbo 3."
B3: The Mighty Dwarves
Which one came first? bilbo or dildo?
That was my first reaction when I was reading the book.
Then I really don't know how you were able to suffer through Bilbo's house unscathed.
It's probably because I liked the dwarves and their antics.
LOTR doesn't really do any kind of job showing you what the dwarves were really like. Gimli is the only dwarf in the whole thing that does anything important or meaningful. Otherwise, they're all just stoic resolve and grumpiness.
Whereas in The Hobbit, they're basically gypsies. They have no country of their own, no land, no home. They get by in life doing whatever odd jobs help them to pay the bills. And yet, they still have an irrepressable zeal that I found entertaining.
I enjoyed seeing a race in Middle Earth that wasn't boring (hobbits, elves) or depressing (humans) or evil (orcs, 'easterlings') and getting a chance to really see, at length, what dwarves are like in this world.
So much of that first hour is all about establishing the dwarves, and I really liked the 'new' element that Jackson added into the mythology.
Whatever Jackson was doing with the dwarves in that first part you found so boring, I found very engaging from the world building perspective.
That's the thing, other than the (interesting) backstory they told in flashbacks, the dwarves other than Thorin and the white haired old dwarf (if he were one of Snow White's Seven Dwarves, he would've been named "Expository") the rest did nothing to illustrate their culture and personality other than "wacky antics!" I'm not saying they needed to be boring or brooding (though Thorin understandably is the latter), but I felt like I didn't learn much about any of their personalities other than "oh look, a fat one!"
I mean: Only because I'd read some stuff several months ago after seeing a poster did I know that one of the dwarves has an axe blade stuck in his skull so he can only speak in some special language (orcish?). Apparently that may have not even been in the book, but instead of developing that backstory in any meaningful way we got all of a 3-second bit where he starts blathering and the other dwarves at the tables dismiss it and move on with wacky plate throwing and burping contests. Instead of showing off the 3D ad nauseam in those sequences they could've done a little more exposition and then it would've have been so uneven (and a bit jarring) when they'd suddenly go into the more serious musical numbers.
Other than Bilbo and Thorin, this isn't a character driven story. This is an adventure story and those other characters are there to be a bunch of somewhat capable bumblers who are the only dwarves willing to go with Thorin. Their brand of 'comedy' may not have worked for you, but that doesn't make it bad filmmaking.
I am not saying the movie is 'perfect' but overall I think it's an engaging and well handled experience, which is why I gave it such a high mark. In the movie thread, you gave it 3.5/5 and I gave it 4/5, so we're really not that far apart on this overall. But your issues with the film revolve around narrative and pacing. Taking the movie for what it is, I found it to have different, and lesser, problems.
I will agree that it's indulgent filmmaking to a certain degree, which is the main reason I didn't give it a perfect score. I really didn't think it needed all the overt nods to LOTR. I also don't think they should be trying to 'presage' LOTR so that these movies make a natural six film trilogy. There are too many hints of 'dark times to come' in the movie. I sometimes wondered if Jackson wasn't thumbing his nose at Lucas, saying 'I'll show you how to make a proper prequel trilogy, Georgie-boy!' It sometimes seems it's not enough for Jackson to have the crowning achievement of what has to basically be considered the most well made film trilogy of all time on his resume.
And I completely agree with your thoughts about King Kong being bloated. I remember enjoying it at the time, but a few weeks later, I asked 'did Kong NEED to be 3 hours long?'
This is, largely, the same complaint that could fairly be leveled against The Hobbit. I think the difference is that I never felt bored and never really felt the movie dragged. Given the fact that I enjoyed it as much as I did, I cannot give it a lower mark. Likewise, I do not consider it to be flawed filmmaking, nor do I consider it a 'guilty pleasure.' Overall, it's a well made film, IMO.
A movie can be a made competently and still be a disappointment, that's what differs between 1/2-point: you think this movie was a success, I think it was a disappointment given its pedigree.
RevQuixo said:Okay..maybe someone can clear this one up for me...
When the fat dwarf is running from the goblins in the chase scene is gets himself covered with goblins and then does a move where he jumps up and crashes through 2 or 3 bridges to knock them loose...thus ending a quite a few levels below the grouping of other dwarves.
Then he ends up back with the group before the final encounter with the Goblin King.
I don't see how he could have caught back up truthfully.