Please log in to participate in this forum.
Usually when an epic book is turned into a movie I think how are they going to fit all that into one movie, in the case of the Hobbit they're making three movies out of one book, it's really slow but still a cool movie. I don't know what I want anymore.
Jan 11 - 04:05 PM
Let's compare just the first hour of The Hobbit with that of The Fellowship of the Ring.
The Hobbit: We've covered the collapse of a dwarven kingdom, and are now in Bilbo's house, meeting the dwarves and establishing Bilbo as a reluctant hero.
The Fellowship of the Ring: we've seen Sauron defeated, and know what the ring is, and why it's important, not to mention why it's still around. We have been introduced to Bilbo, who shows us some of what the ring does. Simultaniously, we are introduced to Frodo, Merry, Pippin, and Sam.
We see that Sauron is back, and has sent his undead servants to capture Frodo. I believe it's around this point in the movie when the hobbits leave the shire, hunted by Nazgul the whole way.
Also, we meet Saruman, and have seen his betrayal of Gandalf.
This disparity of actual content continues throughout the running times of both movies, even if The Hobbit manages to get moving at a slightly faster pace later on.
Jan 5 - 10:44 AM
That is a very good point, fotr coverd more ground in less time, but the hobbit isn't quite as sparse as you make it, for instance, the 'setting bilbo up as a reluctant hero' part also introduces gandalf, thorin and the other dwaves. More charachters were introduced in that one scene than the entire run of fotr.
Jan 6 - 03:47 PM
You're right, I was exaggerating on the lack of content in The Hobbit, but not by much. I should have mentioned Thorin and Gandalf. But the other dwarves are kind of a rabble. They receive little to now character development throughout the movie. Heck, some of them don't have any lines beyond "hello" or chorus singing.
All of the character I mentioned in the FotR were major characters, weather in the context of FotR alone or the entire trilogy.
Also, I should note: the dwarves underdevelopment isn't a problem. I kind of like how you never get to know all of them; just their general purpose and how they act as a group. The problem is that The Hobbit spent an hour or so on the underdeveloped rabble, rather than on the underdeveloped rabble's adventures with Bilbo. Which is kind of what The Hobbit is all about.
Jan 8 - 09:52 AM
As I said in my review: The Hobbit is a great adventure movie. The stakes aren't as high as in LotR, but that doesn't make it a bad movie! The length of the movie made me feel more part of Middle-Earth, and that's the most important accomplishment of any Tolkien movie to me.
Jan 4 - 03:01 PM
django was 2hrs 47min long, and critics were very upest yet it still has a higher rating, no complaints from you !
Jan 3 - 02:12 PM
As well, Django has a real ending.
Jan 4 - 07:04 AM
As well, D P has a real moronic attitude, as usual. I see DP's posts everywhere, making incredibly naive statements with NO back up explanations. I wonder if he's over 14?
Jan 4 - 09:55 PM
So what was incorrect about what I wrote here?
Jan 4 - 11:01 PM
Defin a 'real ending' beyond the inclution of a climax and denouncement, both of which an unexpected journey had.
Jan 6 - 03:41 PM
It had a pretty dull denouement.
Jan 6 - 06:41 PM
So it had an ending, just one you didn't like.
Jan 8 - 10:04 AM
A denouement isn't the same as an ending.
Jan 9 - 11:10 AM
You're right DP Django did have a real ending. Then again, Django isn't expected to have any sequels unlike The Hobbit. Also, the ending of the Hobbit was just fine and really sets up anticipation for the next movie.
Jan 10 - 09:05 PM
It's a cheat, IMhO. There's no need for thevHobbit to be three movies.
Jan 10 - 10:11 PM
Thoroughly Entertain Me Or Die
yeah! the hobbit minus end credits is actually just above 155 minutes, about 15 minutes shorter than FOTR/TTT.
Jan 3 - 01:59 PM
The key Iis that this is just the first part. A book that's shorter than Fellowship shouldn't require three movies.
Dec 22 - 08:50 PM
Yes but that would be a complaint about the decision to make three films, which no can comment on yet as the other two films aren't out. Really 3 films is to short to include everything that was in the lotr books, they ar much more on the mark with this trilogy.
Jan 5 - 04:57 AM
Sorry,but if they're released separately, they should be judged separately.
Jan 5 - 07:25 AM
I guess so, being the first act of a 9 hour story will always mean a relitively slow pace though.
Jan 6 - 03:38 PM
There's no reason this needs to be a 9 hour story.
Jan 9 - 11:11 AM
I think the critics think that because the Hobbit isn't as extensive and large as LOTR was it shouldn't take 3 films to make and they think that Jackson is drawing the story out too long.
For myself, I think critics are useless they only like to hear themselves talk. The intelligence in a movie critic is, well, not quite up to par.
Dec 22 - 02:51 PM