It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
orcishgamer: *snip*
I agree. I just didn't think that the eagles saved the movie in any way for me.

But as you maybe guessed I have rather strong opinions about An Unexpected Journey (which I am talking about all over the internet) so I don't think that any one scene would have changed it for me really. :)

I think that if the eagles being called by Gandalf's moth was the only part of the "Out of the Fire and Into the Frying Pan" (or maybe more specifically "to escape goblins to be caught by wargs" haha) scene that I didn't like I wouldn't really care that much. Yeah, the moth is weird in Fellowship but it would be fine if it was there as the justification. But in the current context I think that it is just another example of the silly things that Jackson and co. do with the story to make it "fit" their version of Middle Earth, and the story they think they are supposed to be telling.

I almost might just be being a grump. haha. I totally didn't complain this much about LOTR when it came out (and I was just as big a Tolkien nerd 11 years ago... but maybe it had something to do with being 11 or whatever and also not having as much internet omnipresence to see thoughts shared and share mine. haha)

Edit:
avatar
xa_chan: You say "I disagree that An Unexpected Journey needed to be consistent with the LOTR movies". I totally agree, maybe I didn't explain myself well enough (english is not my first language ;) ). I didn't say it needed to be consistent, i just wanted to say that Jackson decided that for him it needed to be consistent and I was merely pointing out that he succeeded in making it consistent with the LOTR movies.
Ah! Thanks for explaining more. Though I think I still disagree. :)
I actually don't think that the tone between An Unexpected Journey and LOTR is kept constant all that well. I think that I mentioned somewhere earlier in this thread (though perhaps it was somewhere else) that I think that the movie does a poor job being able to choose if it wants to be serious or childish. And I think that it has a lot of little childish things that would be fine in the form of a more "children's movie - book Hobbit-esque movie", but that I think make the tone of the current movie a bit silly and contradictory.

I think it was the wrong decision by Jackson and co. to make An Unexpected Journey in a way that directly ties it to LOTR (or so directly ties every aspect of it to LOTR), but once he made that decision I think that they didn't do a great job of really capitalizing on that.

While there is an attempt to retell the story in a more epic fashion there is this back and forth jostle between bookish-silliness (dwarves being ridiculous: see something like the party at Bilbo's house; or the storm giants; or the Great Goblin's death scene) and epic fantasy (the rallying speeches, all the gratuitous battles, the constant sense of danger and pursuit from Azog for the party). And I think that this makes the movie overall a bad one because it tries to do too many things and so fails at all of them.
Post edited December 29, 2012 by SheBear
Well I just saw it. I enjoyed it, in fact in some ways I liked it more than LOTR. I think they did a good job of capturing that "adventure" vibe that is unique to the Hobbit. The tone felt uneven though sometimes.

I could have done without the sometimes juvenile humor though (burping, snot jokes,) and the whole Thorin-not-trusting Bilbo felt kinda... off to me. I would have ditched that subplot entirely or made it more subtle.

But the movie felt more personal in a way that LOTR did not and frankly it was a nice change from "everything has to be uber epic" of LOTR.
Post edited December 29, 2012 by NoxNoctum
I just came back from the cinema. It was THE best movie since a very long time. I was sitting like a little kid with my face all blushed and mouth half opened.

I wish it was longer.

I'm glad that this will be a trilogy. 3 times more awesomeness.

By the way, I see what people write here and I see the same things that were said years ago when LOTR came out. Fanboys were all around claiming how shitty LOTR movies are because "Elves aiding humans in The Two Towers? WTF?! 0/10 !!!!" "Nazguls flying on some weird dragons? -10/10 !!!!!!", so I don't feel any need to participate in those.

They will shut up in a while.
Post edited January 02, 2013 by keeveek
avatar
Elmofongo: Best Blockbuster movie of the year for me, it even beats Avengers.
avatar
Coelocanth: Not for me, but I think this is a situation of expectations. I had no desire to see The Avengers and was really stoked for The Hobbit. I think that's why I feel the former was better entertainment than the latter, since The Avengers was a really pleasant surprise for me, while The Hobbit just had too many things that bugged me and detracted from my expectations for it.
It was exactly the opposite for me. I wasn't expecting THAT much from The Hobbit because I knew it was impossible for it to surprass LOTR in my eyes. And I was expecting The Avengers to be awesome (and it was). So, my expectations were on par with my reality: I got exactly what I was expecting from both movies.

The Hobbit was a good movie but, i don't know why, the movie felt... odd to me. Two parts come to mind here: The mountain giants and the goblin kingdom. And it doesn't help that those two came one after another either. I think I don't need to explain why but both parts felt forced and cheesy. In fact, I go as far as to say that the former didn't even need to be in the screen and could be safely cut with no consequences to the final product.

My rate: 8/10
avatar
keeveek: By the way, I see what people write here and I see the same things that were said years ago when LOTR came out. Fanboys were all around claiming how shitty LOTR movies are because "Elves aiding humans in The Two Towers? WTF?! 0/10 !!!!" "Nazguls flying on some weird dragons? -10/10 !!!!!!", so I don't feel any need to participate in those.

They will shut up in a while.
I will probably shut up about how I thought An Unexpected Journey failed when everyone else does too (probably pretty soon, when everyone has seen it).

But I also am not against the movie SOLELY because of the liberties that Jackson and co. took with the lore: that is a piece of not liking the movie, but that is the same piece in LOTR and I really like them as movies!

In my mind An Unexpected Journey was just a bad movie. Period.
I liked the movie. Thought it was significantly better than Fellowship of the Ring, but not as good as the final two LotR films.

But I think some of the fights were too light hearted. They were something that belonged more in the Pirates of Caribbean. The goblin king's death? "That will do it" Come on! It felt like a cartoon.

Also the pale orc was way too un-intimidating. Looked like airbrushed Voldemort.
Post edited January 02, 2013 by kalirion
Saw it yesterday. In the end, I feel the same way about the Hobbit as I have felt about the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. If countless millions of dollars and hours of ridiculous special effects and repetitious Orc bashing is what it takes to afford us a few short glimpses of Cate Blanshett in a white gown, then by god, so be it.
avatar
keeveek: By the way, I see what people write here and I see the same things that were said years ago when LOTR came out. Fanboys were all around claiming how shitty LOTR movies are because "Elves aiding humans in The Two Towers? WTF?! 0/10 !!!!" "Nazguls flying on some weird dragons? -10/10 !!!!!!", so I don't feel any need to participate in those.

They will shut up in a while.
I never read the books and hated the first two LOTR movies because they were horribly paced and cheesy as fuck... if that makes you feel better :P
avatar
StingingVelvet: I never read the books and hated the first two LOTR movies because they were horribly paced and cheesy as fuck... if that makes you feel better :P
There is a special place in hell for people like you ;P It's called The Shithole ;P
I liked the movie, but that' about the limit of what I can say for it. It definitely had a lighter feel to it than the LOTR movies, which probably helped with my biggest beef with it. If it had tried to be more serious then I don't think I would have been able to get past the absurd number of overly sensationalized life or death moments, the heroes kept miraculously escaping from.

I know such things are big business in movies, but it was quite unapologetic about cheating death. To the point where I stopped believing in danger at all, and started rolling my eyes.

Maybe a little slow in the beginning.
avatar
keeveek: By the way, I see what people write here and I see the same things that were said years ago when LOTR came out. Fanboys were all around claiming how shitty LOTR movies are because "Elves aiding humans in The Two Towers? WTF?! 0/10 !!!!" "Nazguls flying on some weird dragons? -10/10 !!!!!!", so I don't feel any need to participate in those.

They will shut up in a while.
avatar
StingingVelvet: I never read the books and hated the first two LOTR movies because they were horribly paced and cheesy as fuck... if that makes you feel better :P
NOW I know why I never liked you. Everything has a reason.
hehehe =D
overly sensationalized life or death moments, the heroes kept miraculously escaping from.
This is why we call them heroes ;P

But I know what you are talking about - there were maybe too many scenes with dwarfs surviving big falls and battles they normally wouldn't survive.

But I was actually glad because of this. If any of them died in the first movie, I would cry an ocean. I love the characters.
Post edited January 02, 2013 by keeveek
avatar
FAButzke: NOW I know why I never liked you. Everything has a reason.
hehehe =D
Insert a long tracking shot across mountains and valleys which eventually settles on my face and a slight pout.
avatar
Ivory&Gold: Saw it yesterday. In the end, I feel the same way about the Hobbit as I have felt about the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. If countless millions of dollars and hours of ridiculous special effects and repetitious Orc bashing is what it takes to afford us a few short glimpses of Cate Blanshett in a white gown, then by god, so be it.
Ha ha, alright, I can agree to that (with the exception of the cheesy scene in LOTR, where she spoke with a funny voice ;) ). I'd even go further and admit that I didn't mind Liv Tyler being in the LOTR movies either; for all I care she could have gotten even more extra scenes. Those two were certainly more convincing Tolkien elves than Leonardo Bloom. :D
avatar
gooberking: I liked the movie, but that' about the limit of what I can say for it. It definitely had a lighter feel to it than the LOTR movies, which probably helped with my biggest beef with it. If it had tried to be more serious then I don't think I would have been able to get past the absurd number of overly sensationalized life or death moments, the heroes kept miraculously escaping from.
Thing is, it's not really a movie at all. It feels and looks like, and pretty much serves the purpose of, an amusement park ride. Or more precisely, these "4D cinema" things, were you watch something crashing down a mountain or whatever, and the seats move accordingly. Only less cool, but much longer.

Judge it as a movie, and it's unimaginably ugly, plastic and crude, judge it as an "experience", with hordes of hideous 3D beasts jumping at you and careering tracking shots, and it's fine.

The Trilogy was ugly and, yes, cheesy in places (impressive in others), but ultimately those were still very much movies.

But yeah, who cares? Blanchett is achingly beautiful as Galadriel and pierces the ridiculous sausage festival going on around her like a beam of golden light breaking through dark clouds...

*cough*