The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

The Hobbit films are fun and easier to watch compared to LOTR for a lot of people (especially those that aren't familiar with the source material) and I can see why some might prefer them.

Not me though :)
 
Shamikebab said:
Radagast wasn't even in the Hobbit afaik. They're not really an adaptation. it's The Hobbit + other stuff that was happening in the world that is important for the overall story.
Click to expand...

I was shocked back then that was the good Doctor, Sylvester McCoy.
 
Uncle Petey said:
I still want to know where Smaug received his fine education. Does Middle Earth have a finishing school for dragons or something?
Click to expand...

Glaucus said:
I haven't read any of the books, so that might make a difference, but the hobbit have been better than lotr. None of them are 10/10 however.

Lotr averaged 7.33333/10 for me, so far hobbit series is averaging 8.5/10
Click to expand...

That's like enjoying ice cream but enjoying, say, eating a big poo, even more.

I couldn't disagree more. The hobbit had bizarre pacing, absolutely no sense of threat or danger, 2D characters, stupid action scenes that were drawn out and some terrible, terrible CGI. My biggest grump was that it was unnecessarily goofy (kids films don't have to be dumb - I think I'd be insulted as a child if I was told I should put up with such nonsense in a movie.
 
Nitefly said:
That's like enjoying ice cream but enjoying, say, eating a big poo, even more.

I couldn't disagree more. The hobbit had bizarre pacing, absolutely no sense of threat or danger, 2D characters, stupid action scenes that were drawn out and some terrible, terrible CGI. My biggest grump was that it was unnecessarily goofy (kids films don't have to be dumb - I think I'd be insulted as a child if I was told I should put up with such nonsense in a movie.
Click to expand...

You are in a minority. 8.1 vs 8.8 is hardly a massive average rating.
Lot also had terrible CGI at points, or have you blocked that from your memory?
 
Glaucus said:
You are in a minority. 8.1 vs 8.8 is hardly a massive average rating.
Lot also had terrible CGI at points, or have you blocked that from your memory?
Click to expand...

Look at the imdb rating of te King Kong remake. Yeah.

Also, I'll clarify for the benefit of everyone the cgi problem. It's not how it looks in isolation, it's how it's used to create implausible or visually jarring events that just don't make sense. For example, that scene when they are falling down the cliff on a wooden platform. That is just stupid and a terrible use of cgi. I can't recall anything that bad cgi wise in lord of the rings.

That's distinctly different from those big elephants in return of the king, because I'm willing to suspend my disbelief more in respect of something that couldn't exist without it. There is no need for a physics defying hill sliding. It's inexcusable.

The goofiest and stupidest moment in lord if the rings was legolas's infamous shield slide. But even that's less annoying as it's practical special effects.
 
How is it any different? A stupid slide is a stupid slide. Fantasy has always had lots of unbelievable things like that, as do action films.
Anyway I'll enjoy what I enjoy.
 
Still the worst looking CGI in any of the films is in the final LOTR. I'm talking about the scene with the skulls with the King of the Dead. That **** looked terrible.
 
Looking forward to this. I put the Hobbit films just behind the LOTR trilogy but they're still excellent films in their own right.

Yes there's a lot of CGI but I don't find it ruins the film.
 
Nitefly said:
That's like enjoying ice cream but enjoying, say, eating a big poo, even more.

I couldn't disagree more. The hobbit had bizarre pacing, absolutely no sense of threat or danger, 2D characters, stupid action scenes that were drawn out and some terrible, terrible CGI. My biggest grump was that it was unnecessarily goofy (kids films don't have to be dumb - I think I'd be insulted as a child if I was told I should put up with such nonsense in a movie.
Click to expand...

Did you quote me by accident?
 
Theres some aspects of them I don't like but they do kind of need to appeal to a more modern audience unfortunately, fortunately still some good stuff in there if you can get past the cartoon physics and some of the prolonged "party" scenes, etc. aren't to my taste.
 
The scenery always blows me away. I loved the first two. Even Bag End all cosy and talking plus the singing in 5.1. Such a rich soundtrack.

Also loved the build up from Gandalf seeking out the evil and seeing Sauron. Loved every second. Including the detail in Smaug. Most of it was so beautiful. Must have watched these films 4 - 6 times now.
 
V F said:
The scenery always blows me away. I loved the first two. Even Bag End all cosy and talking plus the singing in 5.1. Such a rich soundtrack.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% here, this is one of the main reasons I watch LOTR or Hobbit, the scenery is way beyond all other movies,
 
LOTR was good.

THese past 2 Hobbit films are pretty meh to me and see them because they are out not because im desperate to.

Its been milked far too much and I find them almost predictable in style now. Which i guess after 5 is to be completely expected.

The Hobbit movies have had their moments of greatness but also the moments i feel that editing out whole swathes of the film wouldn't even bother me.

I saw the hobbit pt2 twice in the cinema and i was frankly bored during the 2nd showing.
 
I'm looking forward to this.

While The Hobbit can't match the epicness of LoTR, I do feel it is solid, and with the 2nd being better than the 1st, I hope will continue to get better.
 
I got round to seeing number two last night. I'm very pleased to report that it was much better than the first, so worth persevering for anyone disheartened by the part one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom