Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And it is fething awesome! Also, dwarven battle goats!

I'll give it a shot

Unfortunately, unlike most people, I really disliked the second Hobbit movie. Loved the first (saw it three times in the theater, even!). Second with the made-up portions and terrible dwarf-vs-Smaug scenes... I just couldn't stomach it.

Yeah, I also wasn't the biggest fan of parts of Desolation (mainly then rushed first half hour and the final set piece) and would give it 8/10. If the extended version does as rumoured and makes the first 30 minutes 45, that might become a 9.

This, though, is a 10 waiting to happen. After this trailer, I expect the equal of ROTK.

 RiTides wrote:
I'll give it a shot

Unfortunately, unlike most people, I really disliked the second Hobbit movie. Loved the first (saw it three times in the theater, even!). Second with the made-up portions and terrible dwarf-vs-Smaug scenes... I just couldn't stomach it.

Yeah. The second film suffered from what I've dubbed "stage building syndrome." I keeps popping (recently the entire 3rd season of Hell of Wheels is it) and it annoys me. If you're going to make a movie, I'd rather you didn't spend it whispering in my ear "you'll need to wait for the next movie/season/game to stop being bored."

 Paradigm wrote:

This, though, is a 10 waiting to happen. After this trailer, I expect the equal of ROTK.

Prepare to be disappointed. Assuming it's as long as the first two, the pacing in the third film is going to be agonising. Not read the book in years but as far as I can recall, all that's left to do is the dwarves falling out with bilbo, then the actual battle. It's going to be slow going.

If I hadn't been so thoroughly let down by the last two, I'd be somewhat excited for this. Given the amount of actual book story left for them to portray, I really don't expect much more than an overly-long snail-crawl filled with copious amounts of filler and perhaps a good fight scene or two.

Mmm mega battle...COOL!

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

This, though, is a 10 waiting to happen. After this trailer, I expect the equal of ROTK.

Prepare to be disappointed. Assuming it's as long as the first two, the pacing in the third film is going to be agonising. Not read the book in years but as far as I can recall, all that's left to do is the dwarves falling out with bilbo, then the actual battle. It's going to be slow going.

You know, give me 3, hours of battle scenes and I'll be happy. If this thing is even anywhere close to the battle of Minas Tirith/Pellenor (and it looks to be) then I can't possibly complain. There are few things more funfun to watch than a PJ directed LOTR battle scene.

I also thought the last one was too fast, and could have done with being 20 mi utewa longer. I eagerly await the extended edition.

Assuming 3 hours, maybe a bit less, this is how I imagine it panning out. (For those who have not read the book, spoilers)




First hour: opens with Smaug destroying lake town and associated events. Then has the dwarves getting wind of the result. They begin to fortify the mountain, knowing others will come for the gold/ maybe at this point, Thorin finds the Arkenstone and goes more than a little crazy. Interspersed with all this, various folks will bust Gandalf out of Dol Guldur.

Second bit, half an hour to hour: the elves, lakemen and gandalf come to bargain for the gold, and hostility almost breaks out. Gandalf and maybe some others know that the Orc army is coming, and try to stop everyone killing each other.

Final hour: the eponymous and awesome battle, and then everyone goes home.

Sounds pretty damn good to me.
Although I have no issue with long films, so YMMV.

I'm still reeling over the crappiness of the first 2 movies, so I'm not getting my hopes up for this one.

The trailer does look cool though, battle scenes look reminescent of LOTR movies, however more CGI used. Its enough to make me want to see it in theaters, rather than wait for Blu Ray, anyways.

Not impressed with the folk singing. It's always been the weakest parts of any of the LOTR/Hobbit movies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Mmm mega battle...COOL!

Mega battle? Reminds me of Saturday night in East London. Woe betide anybody who gets in the way of those East End girls and their alcohol

I"m excited. I actually like the first two for the most part (they do get a bit slow at times) but I'm certainly excited for this one as well.

The big question is whether or not this is the end of Tolkien on film.

 cincydooley wrote:


The big question is whether or not this is the end of Tolkien on film.

The question you need to ask yourself, is will there still be money in it

There's a wealth of material in universe to make new movies on. I mentioned in the last thread we had on the second film that I'd love a movie about the battles around Erebor during the War of the Ring. Balin's failed Moria colony would make an epic horror film too.

 cincydooley wrote:
The big question is whether or not this is the end of Tolkien on film.

Doubtful. Christopher Tolkien won't live forever, and whoever inherits the Tolkien property rights will likely want to cash in on the Silmarillion and the various other books he has put together from his father's notes. There's probably like 20+ films potentially in those books. The question is whether the Peter Jackson films have caused any kind of Toliken-fatigue, and if so, how long it will last.

jasper76 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
The big question is whether or not this is the end of Tolkien on film.

Doubtful. Christopher Tolkien won't live forever, and whoever inherits the Tolkien property rights will likely want to cash in on the Silmarillion and the various other books he has put together from his father's notes. There's probably like 20+ films potentially in those books. The question is whether the Peter Jackson films have caused any kind of Toliken-fatigue, and if so, how long it will last.

Children of Hurin would make a great movie or two. Good characters, and a dragon that makes Smaug look like a tiddler!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Not impressed with the folk singing. It's always been the weakest parts of any of the LOTR/Hobbit movies.

Actually, I was amazed at the effect the song had. Completely unexpected, and set the tone perfectly for the trailer. Same effect as the Song of the Lonely Mountain in the first film's trailer.

I didn't love the first two or hate them. I'm kinda meh about them. That sad a giant fight scene will normally get my butt in the seat.

I couldn't even finish the first film. It wasn't an adaptation, it was an insult.

I always get sad when I see the hobbit or its sequals. It was like the last film I saw with my Dad.

I can understand my man.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I couldn't even finish the first film. It wasn't an adaptation, it was an insult.

I watched the first two, but share your opinion.

In the LotR films there were a lot of things that were changed. But pretty much all of them were for the translation from book to movie. The nerd in me cringed at a few things, but I could understand why it was necessary to chop and re-write some stuff, even if it went contrary to what was written.

But in the Hobbit, I see a lot of things made up whole cloth, or changed for the sake of Hollywood, not just the different medium. I ask myself “why did they make this change” and can’t come up with a decent answer.

I’ll watch the new one when it hits Netflix.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I couldn't even finish the first film. It wasn't an adaptation, it was an insult.

I think this is an interesting take, in that I think sometimes we (as book readers, source material blokes, etc) get too "caught up" in the strict adherence to the source material.

I think there are problems with the first two films simply because there are lots areas in the story where it's just slow, because the novel is slow. But I don't think they're terrible, and I guess I don't really see it as an insult because I feel like Jackson and his films really do a great job of capturing the spirit of the films. Like many, I wasn't a huge fan of the banter between Smaug and Bilbo, but I understand the reasoning for it.

I've become much more lenient with a film/screen version of a beloved book/series strictly adhering to the source material, and I think that's a lot to do with Game of Thrones. I think the TV series is better than the books in many ways because it cuts out some of GRRM's "chaff" and has significantly improved some characters (Dany, for instance).

In that vein, I also think the Katniss Everdeen character has been VASTLY improved in the movies vs. the books. In fact, I'm hoping we see some significant diversions in Mockingjay from the source material, in order to keep Katniss as a strong character, which if you've read all three books, so slowly moves away from over Catching Fire and Mockingjay.

Anyone, small ramble.

 cincydooley wrote:
I've become much more lenient with a film/screen version of a beloved book/series strictly adhering to the source material, and I think that's a lot to do with Game of Thrones. I think the TV series is better than the books in many ways because it cuts out some of GRRM's "chaff" and has significantly improved some characters (Dany, for instance).

HBO only removes the "chaff" from GoT to meet its 25% soft porn quota.

 cincydooley wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
I couldn't even finish the first film. It wasn't an adaptation, it was an insult.

I think this is an interesting take, in that I think sometimes we (as book readers, source material blokes, etc) get too "caught up" in the strict adherence to the source material.

I think there are problems with the first two films simply because there are lots areas in the story where it's just slow, because the novel is slow. But I don't think they're terrible, and I guess I don't really see it as an insult because I feel like Jackson and his films really do a great job of capturing the spirit of the films. Like many, I wasn't a huge fan of the banter between Smaug and Bilbo, but I understand the reasoning for it.

I've become much more lenient with a film/screen version of a beloved book/series strictly adhering to the source material, and I think that's a lot to do with Game of Thrones. I think the TV series is better than the books in many ways because it cuts out some of GRRM's "chaff" and has significantly improved some characters (Dany, for instance).

In that vein, I also think the Katniss Everdeen character has been VASTLY improved in the movies vs. the books. In fact, I'm hoping we see some significant diversions in Mockingjay from the source material, in order to keep Katniss as a strong character, which if you've read all three books, so slowly moves away from over Catching Fire and Mockingjay.

Anyone, small ramble.

Some of my issues with the Hobbit movies is the hollywood checklist does not apply.

Romantic love triangle? <check>
Car chase? How about a running river barrel fight? <check>
Main characters fight scene? <check>

I can understand and forgive some of the off screen/flashback stuff they included. It helps flesh out the world, and ties places, history, and events into the LotR movies. But a LOT of crap seems shoehorned into the movies by some ham-fisted studio exec who doesn’t understand anything but was just making sure all his blockbuster formula boxes were filled in.

If they didn’t feel compelled to stretch it unnecessarily into a trilogy (because that’s another box on the checklist) I might forgive a bit more. I could understand two movies, there is enough content for that (particularly with the extra bits) But padding them out with unneeded Hollywood BS and expecting me to pay for an extra ticket just rubs me the wrong way.

 Frazzled wrote:
I can understand my man.

Wait no, It was World War Z I saw last with him. Hobbit was second to last.

 Nevelon wrote:

Car chase? How about a running river barrel fight? <check>

This is, honestly, the first time I've ever heard someone complain about the barrel chase scene. I thought it was great.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

Car chase? How about a running river barrel fight? <check>

This is, honestly, the first time I've ever heard someone complain about the barrel chase scene. I thought it was great.

I thought it was about 47 minutes too long...

 cincydooley wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

Car chase? How about a running river barrel fight? <check>

This is, honestly, the first time I've ever heard someone complain about the barrel chase scene. I thought it was great.

Ironically that scene would have fit in well with the actual Hobbit book as its light hearted and childlike, considering Hobbit was a children's book.

All the grabage in Laketown, not so much.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

Car chase? How about a running river barrel fight? <check>

This is, honestly, the first time I've ever heard someone complain about the barrel chase scene. I thought it was great.

Even from a Hollywood action scene POV I had some problems with it.

It went a little bit too long.
The “look at me being awesome” Legolas bits were unneeded. I can understand his inclusion in the Hobbit movies (he is a/the prince of the Mirkwood elves) but a lot of his bits were very Mary Sue/fanservice-esque.
I can understand that physics sometimes takes a backseat to action, but a lot of the barrel stunts broke my suspension of disbelief.
Some of the comedic bits. The axes sticking out the side and spinning as an orc-killing machine was OTT.

This is all on top of the fact that the whole scene didn’t need to be in the movie in the first place. We get the orcs are shadowing the dwarves. You could have had a scout seeing the barrels going downriver, and cut to laketown with no loss to the plot. The whole bit had me literally saying “WHY?” out loud repeatedly as I watched it. If I was in a theater, I’m sure popcorn would have been thrown at me. As it was, The Wife commiserated with me at home watching the DVD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Ironically that scene would have fit in well with the actual Hobbit book as its light hearted and childlike, considering Hobbit was a children's book.

All the grabage in Laketown, not so much.

I’ll agree with that assessment.

I liked the barrel scene (apart from a few Legolas stunts) and the laketown political stuff, while far from the book, was well done. The Bilbo/Smaug dialogue was great, captured the Scend from the book perfectly.

All the second film needed was more Born, more Mirkwood, and the final set piece could maybe be a bit shorter, but the Extended Version will apparently fix the first time two of those.

 Paradigm wrote:


Thorin finds the Arkenstone

Thorin does what, now?

That'll be different.

I could have done without most of the Laketown stuff actually. Foreshadow the lance and tell the story, and send them off to fight the dragon.