What? No discussion on this? Come WF, tell us what you thought! I haven't seen it yet, going next weekend.
I could just repost my review of the first movie... Small highlights completely overshadowed by it being boring, repetitive, padded out to two and a half hours with unwelcome deviations from Tolkien mythology. I am forced to concur with the reviewer who compared latter-day Jackson to George Lucas.
Tried watching the first part of "The Hobbit", it was boring and I fell asleep all three times. Same thing with Captain America the First Avenger,
I didn't feel that the first trilogy was drawn out, apart from at the very end. There was enough material to justify the nine hour runtime. YMMV.
I guess I'm in the minority who loved the first film. In fact the film holds up even better on repeated viewings. The padding didn't bother me since I thoroughly enjoyed becoming immersed in the world of Middle-Earth. I liked the addition of Azog the Defiler, and it makes sense to show Gandalf's disappearances throughout the story that he was actually up to something important that will have a direct effect on the LOTR's movies. If I have one complaint it's that I didn't like how Jackson portrayed The Great Goblin which was a bit too silly. I think that people complaining about the length and "bloat" of these movies have had themselves so programmed by modern media to crave instant gratification that they have no patience for a good long story.
I think the overarching problem with this movie is too-dense plot, too much battle, and not enough fun.
Did I mention I truly hate people who will scream BUT THE BOOK!!!!!! whenever they see a movie? No. I hate them. Two reasons for that: 1. They do it because they want everybody else to know they read a book. Congratulations! 2. It's a different medium. Judge the movie in their own right. I tend to see movies as just another take on the story, maybe in some parallel universe or something. There, much better, isn't it. As for the Hobbit, I'll wait for the Blu-ray. The first one didn't really grab me. I'll sit through it at some point but not in the theater.
While I also don't like the knee-jerk BUT THE BOOK!!!!! there are also 3. Sometimes the book genuinely handled a part better than the movie, and their brains/imagination powers are wired such that they can't see the need to change something so it works better on the screen for other people, even if it's a little inferior to the book for them. 4. They are judging the movie in its own right, and they see something stripped of artistry and made considerably inferior so the masses will be okay with it, and they don't like that.
I don't mind changing source material if needed. But the ONLY reason it's done here is for extra layers of padding. Even if Evangeline Lilly is really, really hot.
And to get Stephen Fry a part, I guess. There are two main additions here: the Tauriel stuff and the Lake-town stuff. Tauriel could have been really good if her role was dialed back. As a strong female role who demonstrated the existence of disagreement among the Elves (and, to throw the fangirls a bone, maybe flirted with Legolas once or twice), she could have been a strong addition. But she was cranked up to Mary Sue levels, to where she took up more than her shares of plot and screentime and was too busy being 4w3s0me to have a personality. The Lake-town stuff just needed to be executed better and maybe trimmed a little. We'll see how important it is once we get to the third movie. You'll just have to wait for the Gloin's Barbershop Quartet Sings Tolkien's Greatest Hits CD to come out.
I'll wait for the inevitable fan edit that cuts all 3 into an hour and a half movie that focuses on The Hobbit.
Just watched it, pretty good. Amazing to watch, amazing film making, but too long and the Tauriel and Legolas stuff was unnecessary.
^Yup, the 'love triangle' is silly and really feels out of place. Gotta pander to the romantics though, don't you PJ? And Smaug talked a bit too much for my liking. Not that I have a problem with talking dragons, but it started to unnerve me a little when I began wondering when he would actually stop talking and start wreaking havoc. Or was he planning to talk to them to death? But a few minor quibbles aside, it was a fun movie to watch, I thought it was better than the previous movie and some of the scenes were amazing. It's setting the stage for a spectacular finale.
It wasn't PJ's decision to have a love triangle, that was forced on him by the Studio to insert a love story to attract more female ticket buyers. Originally Angeline Lilly told PJ specifically that she'd only do the movie if there was no silly love story inserted. At the time he agreed, but when it came time for the reshoots, PJ had to break the news to her that the studio demanded it. So she was shit out of luck. As for Smaug talking so much, it was mentioned in the book that he was toying with Bilbo to get more information. He didn't consider a single burglar much of a threat and he fully intended to incinerate him once he revealed himself. Luckily for Bilbo he wore the Ring, so Smaug had to keep him talking to get him to slip up.
