So as ghost town like as the Action forum is, I am still surprised there is not a thread on the Hobbit so far.
Therefore here it is, though likely as no one else is here, I will have to do a Smeagol/Gollum and start talking to myself about it.
I have now seen the Hobbit 3 times, so thought perhaps time to share my thoughts.
The first time in 3D and super HD at the Cinema, I was quite impressed; I should first say my expectation had been lowered dramatically by some of the reviews I had read and my own misgivings at the fact that I knew it took 180 minutes to get to about Chapter 7 of the book, a relatively small book I might add. And of course the reviews were saying it plodded along and took too long.
Anyway when I first saw it at the cinema I kind of thought the running time flew in and it never felt as long as fellowship did at theatres, and yet my opinions have been changing with each time I have watched it since.
Ok so my opinion is that as a 3D spectacle in the Cinema and giving that it's a bit more light-hearted and action focussed, it works really well and is a quick 180 minutes. However in the comfort of home I d happily watch he extended versions of the LOTR movies and this is where I found the Hobbit lacking, once you have seen a film, the surprise goes away and you are left with the quality only. For me the Hobbit like most reviewers have already written is not as good a film as the Lord of the Rings movies.
Wow, but then did anyone actually think it was going to surpass Lord of the Rings? Was it ever supposed to?
I mean as far as the books go, the Hobbit is a little kids tale compared to the grand scope and scale you are immersed in with the LOTR novel. Therefore for me the narrative can never be as good as the material they already developed. Does that mean the movie should not be made and can it still commended for what it is?
That being said its still an enjoyable movie and I still don't `mind' the lengthy running time for this movie, as they have given us a lot of extras, never quite fully explored in story format in the book, such as the history of Erebor and the coming of Smaug, the Attempted retaking of Moria, that darkening of the Greenwood to become Mirkwood (Though to be fair they have seriously narrowed the timescales involved here down to a matter of days and weeks, when it was clearly years in the novels) and the meeting of the white council, which was always off page in the novel.
These were perhaps the most interesting parts for me and ones that stood up the best, because the rest was so close to the source materials that I felt like I had seen it all before.
I think Jackson stance is that any materials shot about or in Middle Earth is desperately sought by Tolkien Fans, he is correct, but for non Tolkienites I think the extra stuff might be a little too much.
Therefore I can't see why they did not release a slightly shorter and pacey cut for cinema release and then have this one for the extended version on Blu Ray again? Surely they cannot give us a super extended version of this one on Blu Ray. What more could they show, the Journey Galadriel took to get to Rivendell LOL.
So what's left to cover in film 2 and 3?
Well they are at Mirkwood essentially now.
So we have beorn next and then it's the Mirkwood Spiders and the Elves, then Laketown and the Mountain, after that we have the Battle of the Five Armies and the journey home.
Surely they can't fill these out to be 3 hour behemoths as well.
We have about one more meeting of the White Council and perhaps they will show us the sacking of Dol Guldur?
I can't see what other things they will fill it with, perhaps Thorin's Fathers tale, though they seem to have went off that chronologically already.
Anyway back to this film and I thought it was as always well cast, all the returning actors make the film seem somehow more grandiose and connected and the new cast are all fantastic in their parts.
I look forward to the next instalment more than I did, but I still have a worry about it length in my mind.
Will I ever watch these movies as much as I would watch LOTR, no the story is just not as engrossing.
And I suppose I still think to myself if making a book smaller than any 1 volume of the LOTR into a 3 movie series roughly of the same length as LOTR is really such a good idea after all.
Recent discussions in the action discussion forum (522 discussions)
|Cramming in Superheroes at an alarming rate||3532||7 hours ago|
|Whats happend to Jerry Bruckheimer ?||15||9 hours ago|
|What did you watch last night ... volume 2||194||9 hours ago|
|100 best films of the 21st century||6||3 days ago|
|David Fincher to direct World War Z sequel||12||5 days ago|
|whose seen suicide squad...nay or yay?||106||10 days ago|
|What did you watch last night?||9999||24 days ago|
|Steven Seagal Gripes||325||30 May 2016|
|Rogue One (new Star Wars) Trailer||27||24 May 2016|
|Lucasfilm sold to Disney, New Star Wars films announced episodes 7-9, WTF?||583||19 May 2016|
|2016 releases||42||14 Apr 2016|
|John Carpenter||69||11 Apr 2016|