DELETED_74993

easyrider said:
For 55 minutes we have nothing happen.We have Bilbo and the dwarfs doing the same thing for 55 minutes.They eat they chat sing a bit ..thats it.
Click to expand...

If I read between the lines and try and help, it seems you're suggesting the first third of the film was too talky and/or slow for you? I can understand that... Personally I was fine with it though (luckily).

But can you see how your (original) "nothing happens" as seemingly levelled at the entire film, just comes across as unfair, ill-considered and somewhat (and I'll choose my words carefully) vacuous?

easyrider said:
I have already said why I think the CGI was crap
Click to expand...
If you/we now wish to move onto the CGI, I suspect you're picking faults with just certain aspects, scenes or elements. But of course your initial post had no explanation and simply implied all the "CGI was pants?" Just like all your other criticisms came across as unconditional, scathing and all-encompassing of the film.
 
Last edited:
troops said:
To be fair, i thought it was very poor, i was bored after 10 minutes.
Click to expand...

Just 10? :eek: Wow! Not that does appear to be a short attention span :)

Yes, those first 45mins do seem to divide the audience. Let's hope the rumoured extended cut doesn't add anymore footage to that segment of the film then :)
 
NeilFawcett said:
If I read between the lines and try and help, it seems you're suggesting the first third of the film was too talky and/or slow for you? I can understand that... Personally I was fine with it though (luckily).

But can you see how your (original) "nothing happens" as seemingly levelled at the entire film, just comes across as unfair, ill-considered and somewhat (and I'll choose my words carefully) vacuous?

.
Click to expand...

I don't need your help. I have my view and you have yours. Nothing happens means just that. The action didn't drive the narrative.

What we got was one set piece after another. To fill the time. Thats it.

Take any of them away and you get the same film.
 
easyrider said:
I don't need your help. I have my view and you have yours. Nothing happens means just that. The action didn't drive the narrative.

What we got was one set piece after another. To fill the time. Thats it.

Take any of them away and you get the same film.
Click to expand...

Fair enough... 130+ pages of one of the most famous fantasy books ever written, finally committed to modern film, and apparently nothing happens for 3 hours.

You'll excuse me then if I assume such opinions haven't really been fairly considered, are really being made more for effect than to make a sincere point, and as such really don't deserve much credence. Just my (frank) opinion of course...
 
Last edited:
NeilFawcett said:
Fair enough... 130+ pages of one of the most famous fantasy books ever written, finally committed to modern film, and apparently nothing happens for 3 hours.

You'll excuse me then if I assume such opinions haven't really been fairly considered, are really being made more for effect than to make a sincere point, and as such really don't deserve much credence. Just my (frank) opinion of course...
Click to expand...

What does happen doesn't drive the narrative its filler. Period.

Not making these points for effect...Just saying how it is.
 
Me and the missus both watched it, and we wearnt overly impressed if truth be told.

To summarize points that we wearnt impressed with.

* first part of the film went on for too long
* some of the dwarfs, just didn't look dwarven enough to us
* some dodgy CGI scenes, azog, sled scene etc
* goblin city scene just felt like I was watching another star wars CGI fest from Lucas, everything looked so CGI that I couldn't believe it was real (if that makes sense)
* goblin city escape thingy, bored me, they kept taking gobbo after gobbo out, felt like they were in no danger at all.
* I never felt immersed into the film like lotr, I never cared for any of the characters
* could never remember which dwarf was which either lol.
 
maun said:
* goblin city escape thingy, bored me, they kept taking gobbo after gobbo out, felt like they were in no danger at all.
Click to expand...
Yes, they did feel a bit invulnerable didn't they, even down to being able to fall hundreds of feet down race faces, bouncing around, without a single concern.
 
Overall I enjoyed most of the film but several sections of it dragged it down for me.

As already mentioned the first hour is bad. It felt like a fantasy episode of Come Dine With Me and it offered absolutely nothing in terms of background, story arc or even decent humour.

Once they got moving I felt things picked up a lot and I began to get into it more & more, I even thought the Goblin fight scene was pretty good although it was too long.

And then....

at the end when the Eagles drop them off at what must be the worst place imaginable on top of that hill from where they can see where they need to get to.

Why oh why didn't the eagles just take them all the way?

Totally ruined for me.
 
ManCuBuS said:
Overall I enjoyed most of the film but several sections of it dragged it down for me.

As already mentioned the first hour is bad. It felt like a fantasy episode of Come Dine With Me and it offered absolutely nothing in terms of background, story arc or even decent humour.

Once they got moving I felt things picked up a lot and I began to get into it more & more, I even thought the Goblin fight scene was pretty good although it was too long.
Click to expand...
I went with people having told me the beginning was slow, and the were embarrassing songs. Maybe that helped, as I found it fine, and thought the songs were OK.

ManCuBuS said:
And then....

at the end when the Eagles drop them off at what must be the worst place imaginable on top of that hill from where they can see where they need to get to.

Why oh why didn't the eagles just take them all the way?

Totally ruined for me.
Click to expand...

^ You've not read the book?

Of course, your question applies even better to LOTR - Why didn't the Eagles just fly Frodo straight to his destination :)
 
ManCuBuS said:
Overall I enjoyed most of the film but several sections of it dragged it down for me.

As already mentioned the first hour is bad. It felt like a fantasy episode of Come Dine With Me and it offered absolutely nothing in terms of background, story arc or even decent humour.

Once they got moving I felt things picked up a lot and I began to get into it more & more, I even thought the Goblin fight scene was pretty good although it was too long.

And then....

at the end when the Eagles drop them off at what must be the worst place imaginable on top of that hill from where they can see where they need to get to.

Why oh why didn't the eagles just take them all the way?

Totally ruined for me.
Click to expand...

Stolen from elsewhere:

The Eagles of Middle-Earth are sentient beings with intelligence and pride, not beasts of burden. Every time Gandalf calls upon an Eagle to help him he is asking for a favor in a dire situation and not making a command of them. This may not be as clear in the film versions because the back story of the Eagles is not given nor do they speak as they do in the books. In this film, the Eagles left the heroes short of their goal because they were asked to save them from the Orcs and nothing more. Furthermore, since they are indebted neither to the dwarves nor their mission, the Eagles would not, at this point, put themselves at such risk by going so near to Smaug. They would have nothing to gain from doing this. They also tell Gandalf that they would go nowhere near the Lonely Mountain because the men of Dale lived there, and they refuse to go near man anymore. This came up because Thorin asked the Lord of the Eagles why they would not fly them and that was his answer.
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
Furthermore, since they are indebted neither to the dwarves nor their mission, the Eagles would not, at this point, put themselves at such risk by going so near to Smaug. They would have nothing to gain from doing this.
Click to expand...

Makes no sense.

They put themselves at risk to save them from a burning tree hanging off the edge of a cliff in the middle of a battle with people with bows and arrows.

Whats the difference?

It reads like a piece of text made to justify the massive plot hole to me.
 
ManCuBuS said:
Makes no sense.

They put themselves at risk to save them from a burning tree hanging off the edge of a cliff in the middle of a battle with people with bows and arrows.

Whats the difference?

It reads like a piece of text made to justify the massive plot hole to me.
Click to expand...

Ones a few arrows... The others a flying flamethrower with big teeth and a bad temper!

But indeed, if the Eagles had flown them there, it would have meant the entire middle section of the book being skipped :)


EDIT: Hobbit crosses £1b in ticket sales - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ffice_n_2802597.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment
 
Last edited:
Secret_Window said:
Bit annoying that the blu-ray comes out the 19th March in the US and 8th April in the UK. Looks like I am going to have to order from overseas again.
Click to expand...

I assume that's just the theatrical cut? Still amazed there's an extended version coming out with 20-25mins more footage!? Just can't see where it'll fit?
 
NeilFawcett said:
I assume that's just the theatrical cut? Still amazed there's an extended version coming out with 20-25mins more footage!? Just can't see where it'll fit?
Click to expand...

Yes, just the theatrical cut. The extended cut is coming later in the year apparently.

I actually think the extended cut will be a better all-round film. It might help flesh out a few scenes in the middle which deserved a bit more filler.
 
cracks me up theres people on amazon who are givign this 1 star JUST because they are releasing the theatrical version .....you don't want it , don't buy it . i know these days about double-dip ... but some films are a no brainer. didn't they do a limited cinema run of the lotr films when they were extented ?
 
I'm not sure they did do the extended runs in the cinema. I know my local independant cinema didn't as I was waiting for the chance to see them on the big screen again. They did show the trilogy back to back, but the theatrical releases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom