Definitely has a better ring to it than "There and Back Again". Here's the new trailer...
Coming to cinemas on December 17th.
Coming to cinemas on December 17th.
The Hobbit: The Battle of 5 Armies
- Thread starter Dark Drakan
- Start date
Looks great. Am I a bad person for liking the Hobbit movies more than the actual Lord of the Rings?
I watched the others on DVD rather than going cinema but hoping to catch this at Cinema this time.
YOU'RE NOT MY MUM
It's just that in LotR, they all take themselves so bloody seriously. It's like, well yeah, your world is in danger and all, but you've got pointy ears and you're fighting goblin people, just get a grip on yourself man. Sauroman in particularly just needs to pull his head out of his arse because I can't watch him without thinking "mate, you're a magic fairy wizard, just take a mo to unwind or something"
Shhh...
Well that's what comic relief is for. Marvelously provided in part by Merry and Pippin, and to an extent Smeagal. The Hobbit does have a more lighthearted feel. It was originally intended to be a children's book after all.
I'm gonna have to see this, but I will bitch about it while they do. Why did they have to turn it into three movies? Why did they have to add a bunch of extraneous horseshit? Why oh why giant gold statue of death?
I take offense at your phrasing. What does that even mean?
That being said, the Lord of the Rings movies are way better than the Hobbit movies, but the Hobbit is way better than the Lord of the Rings.
I take offense at your phrasing. What does that even mean?
That being said, the Lord of the Rings movies are way better than the Hobbit movies, but the Hobbit is way better than the Lord of the Rings.
I didn't like the book that much, but it was good. The movies... meh... the fact that they are milking it - even if they truly do it for the love of the franchise, and not for the money - gives it a really bad flavor. To top it off they aren't really good either, apart from a glorious visual spectacle.
They're blending in a bunch from the silmarillion so it's more like 2.5 books made into three movies. If you're a tolkien fan I've heard it's 100% accurate. It looks like a good finish. I can't wait 
Watched the movie last night and thought it was superb, some fantastic battle scenes and one on one fights and some of the set pieces were amazing.
They're blending in a bunch from the silmarillion so it's more like 2.5 books made into three movies. If you're a tolkien fan I've heard it's 100% accurate. It looks like a good finish. I can't wait
I AM a Tolkien fan, I DID read the Silmarillon, and none of the **** from there has really been used in the Hobbit movies.
The Lord of the Rings appendices, maybe. But the Silmarillon was basically the myths and legends of Middle Earth. Maaaaybe some of that was used to inform backstory of, say, the king of Mirkwood... but I don't recognize it.
And Tauriel, for instance, came right out of Peter Jackson's hairy backside.
Also, not sure of your math... is this "Hobbit + LOTR appendices + Silmarillon= 2.5 books?"
Not gonna see it until I go home from Maine, though, in the middle of January. Want to see it with family/girlfriend.
Merry and Pippin are basically the only characters I like from LotR - them, Samwise, and Gandalf. I would watch a film of just them getting into various hilarious japes. Maybe they should make it into a sitcom, because I would totally watch that, as long as Frodo wasn't in it, the snivelling turd.
I'm not quite sure how what I said could be misinterpreted...
If this is too long, for ya, I underlined the short version.
It's understandable, but... a wrong question. If that makes sense? The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are two very distinct works. Speaking with respect to the books, first. The Lord of the Rings is the sprawling epic; the Hobbit is a light and happy fairy tale. Think, for lack of a better comparison, that LOTR is the Kalevala and the Hobbit is a very light and fluffy Brave/Valiant Little Tailor (Seven at One Blow).
After the Hobbit was published, and became pretty popular, the publishers came looking for more, and Tolkien kind of welded the Lord of the Rings onto the back end. Even went back to the Hobbit to make some changes so it fit better.
Soooo the way you phrased that sounds... weird, you know? Kind of like saying "is it bad that I like Star Wars a New Hope more than the actual Star Wars the Phantom Menace?"
Then the movies kind of did it backwards. They made the Lord of the Rings first, it was a big sprawling epic, and the movies were a really high-quality adaptation, even kept pretty true to the story of the books. Then they sort of welded the Hobbit movies onto the Lord of the Rings, duct-taped a bunch of extra **** in, and then chopped it into three pieces.
When Tolkien published the Lord of the Rings he went back changed some little things in the Hobbit, like the details of the Riddle Game and how Bilbo found the ring. Jackson, when he made the Hobbit movies, changed a LOT of things. I think he overemphasized the lighter and flufflier tendencies so it got almost slapstick; but he also duct-taped in a lot of Dramatic And Portentous Foreshadowing of Doom, mixed in some background about Gandalf fighting the Necromancer, and pulled a bunch of stuff out of his butt.
Soooo when considered in the context of the movies, my reaction is less dependent on your comparison of the movies and more on "wait, you actually like this seriously flawed adaptation of one of my favorite books ever?
You probably shouldn't. As I was replying I was thinking about how much I've forgotten. Think it's time for a reread!
I hated the first hobbit. Quite liked the second one, probably only due to Cumberbatch as the dragon though.
Iunno, why should I? Can you come up with a better example of the meaning of the word "epic?"
Is he more likely to be familiar with Beowulf or the Odyssey? Now that I think of it, yes, but the Kalevala is my default example regardless of the fact that I am profoundly ignorant of its actual content.