It's clear the films are intended to try as wring as many dollars as possible from this thing, hence the technical gimmicks of 3D and 48-frame resolution, the padding to try to increase the length, and the silly set-piece action/slap-stick.
I saw the 3D, 48-frame version, which neither add or subtract in my view, in other words, they are just gimmicks. 3D is 3D, never really adds much, the 48-frames I didn't think made much difference either.
Then there is the silly action scenes, not in the books, which are just like a dumb video game really. You had some of these pointless scenes in LotR as well, which, the more often you see them, the more you realize they stick out like sore-thumbs.
That said, the lore and details of the Tolkien world are explored in depth by Jackson, with lovingly crafted backstories, so I didn't actually mind the length. In fact, Tolkien geeks will like this. The characters are good fun, especially Bilbo, as well as the dwarves. The riddle scene with Gollum and Bilbo is definitely brilliant, thats the high-light of the movie.
Still enjoyable.
I saw the 3D, 48-frame version, which neither add or subtract in my view, in other words, they are just gimmicks. 3D is 3D, never really adds much, the 48-frames I didn't think made much difference either.
Then there is the silly action scenes, not in the books, which are just like a dumb video game really. You had some of these pointless scenes in LotR as well, which, the more often you see them, the more you realize they stick out like sore-thumbs.
That said, the lore and details of the Tolkien world are explored in depth by Jackson, with lovingly crafted backstories, so I didn't actually mind the length. In fact, Tolkien geeks will like this. The characters are good fun, especially Bilbo, as well as the dwarves. The riddle scene with Gollum and Bilbo is definitely brilliant, thats the high-light of the movie.
Still enjoyable.
This message last edited by Sports_Gambler on 15/12/2012 at 11:46:21 AM
The Hobbit - Discussion thread and first thoughts
13/12/2012 12:21:52 AM
- 2358 Views
As for the 3D...
13/12/2012 04:18:43 PM
- 1158 Views
I wouldn't call it a rash - more like chafing.
14/12/2012 04:36:42 PM
- 1045 Views
I think two words have killed this movie for me: "orc nemesis"
15/12/2012 02:00:33 AM
- 1028 Views
To be fair, it's an orc nemesis from the books.
15/12/2012 07:23:16 PM
- 1044 Views
Wait are we talking about Azog here?
16/12/2012 01:08:11 AM
- 997 Views
Looks like it.
16/12/2012 12:19:19 PM
- 912 Views
There was not an orc nemesis in the books
16/12/2012 01:55:59 PM
- 884 Views
There actually was in Tolkein's mind, it is just contained in a different book. *NM*
28/12/2012 02:37:13 PM
- 446 Views
If you haven't seen it, you really can't judge. It's not a big deal
09/01/2013 04:13:48 AM
- 899 Views
Commercial, forgettable but enjoyable
15/12/2012 11:42:53 AM
- 925 Views
I hated it, but I know I will be in the minority.
28/12/2012 02:45:26 PM
- 964 Views
I think any of those changes need to be viewed with the question, "Did it make a better movie?"
09/01/2013 04:25:32 AM
- 936 Views
Radagast? Bunny Sledge? Archrival Azog? The whole goblin cavern scene? It's a massacre alright. *NM*
11/01/2013 03:07:55 PM
- 522 Views
i actually liked the stone giant fight, that was part of the book which i appreciated in the film
08/01/2013 09:47:18 PM
- 1012 Views